Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[scimitar19]

It is the low image quality and I was not able to discern whether they are horizontal launchers since it looked like they were laid on the floor for keeping besides the new side image doesn't show the launchers were elevated enough to see these containers. I guess its a mock up and to expect for model to be that detailed.

 

[skyshadow]

 

[TheImmortal]

With time to reflect how is safe is it that 96 cells are put right next to each other? If you have a false ignition/accident in one cell the result could be catastrophic.

 

[skyshadow]

With time to reflect how is safe is it that 96 cells are put right next to each other? If you have a false ignition/accident in one cell the result could be catastrophic.

yes you will have a chain reaction in front of the ship they could have put some at the top of the ship next to anti ship cruise missiles but possibility of a chain reaction is extremely low Iran navy have not had an accident like that ever, as far as i know

 

[TheImmortal]

yes you will have a chain reaction in front of the ship they could have put some at the top of the ship next to anti ship cruise missiles but possibility of a chain reaction is extremely low Iran navy have not had an accident like that ever, as far as i know

Well Iran Navy has never had a VLS system before. Even on some Western ships I see it split between front and back.

Given Iran will unlikely be using a cold gas launch system (Russia) then that leaves a hot launch system. So it better be throughly tested for any malfunctions or else you will lose the ship AND the crew.

 

[arashkamangir]

yes you will have a chain reaction in front of the ship they could have put some at the top of the ship next to anti ship cruise missiles but possibility of a chain reaction is extremely low Iran navy have not had an accident like that ever, as far as i know

On the other hand, our missile industry has had such incidents. Safety should come first...

 

[skyshadow]

Well Iran Navy has never had a VLS system before. Even on some Western ships I see it split between front and back.

Given Iran will unlikely be using a cold gas launch system (Russia) then that leaves a hot launch system. So it better be throughly tested for any malfunctions or else you will lose the ship AND the crew.

On the other hand, our missile industry has had such incidents. Safety should come first...

well said, unfortunately we all know Iran has a history of learning after a bad incident is happened

 

[skyshadow]

Iran First country to use BLDC (Brushless DC motor) engines

https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/7156861/حرکت-زیردریایی-غدیر-با-قلب-بومی-ایران-اولین-کشور-استفاده-کننده-از-موتور-bldc-فیلم-و-تصاویر





"According to Amir Admiral Khanzadi, the range and other capabilities of the "Jask-2" cruise missile will increase in the future."

https://defapress.ir/fa/news/372496/رونمایی-از-موشک-جاسک-۲-دشمن-را-غافلگیر-کرد

 

[Sineva]

With time to reflect how is safe is it that 96 cells are put right next to each other? If you have a false ignition/accident in one cell the result could be catastrophic.

This is a risk with all vls systems of the hot launch type,however they are very robustly constructed for multiple re-use and with each individual cell usually having either its own exhaust venting system,or being part of a larger combined venting system for exhaust gasses.Its also likely that in addition to built in systems like sprinklers/fire suppresion,that they would have a predictable failure point built into the design so that in the event of a [very unlikely]worse case scenario ie a warhead detonation,that the blast would vent through the top of the cell blowing the hatch off.
I would imagine that each of the separate vls units would also have rather good armor protection as well.
https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/s...ns-out-inside-german-air-defense-frigate-vls/

"OH SCHEISSE!!"

The cold launch vls systems also have their own problems as these require either a common gas generator or a separate gas generator for each cell,which increases both the complexity and costs,and although it may allow you to independently jettison malfunctioning ordnance it has to be carefully designed to ensure it does this safely so that the round will fall into the sea,otherwise a failure to ignite by the weapon after being ejected could see it crashing back down onto the deck of the ship with potentially unpleasant results[there are videos of land based s300 sams doing just this].

 

[Raghfarm007]

 

[PeeD]

Irans choice of the AK-630 in its Kamand modification may looked like a low-end solution to some, considering the Russian Kashtan, Chinese Type 730 or even U.S Phalanx.

However it was a choice, a whole generation ahead of those systems: Same stopping power or better (Phalanx) but more simple due to the use of powerful main array multi-beam AESAs.

The new trimaran class has from some attack vectors 3 x 30mm Kamand and a 76mm gun to put a simultaneous, massive burst of fire in front of the attacking weapon.
Soviets knew that many AK-630 is the best solution, but no multi-beam radar was available back then to make the solution simple and cost effective.

Irans choice was a brave one and a proof of their smartness.

A 3000 ton, ~100 SAM anti-air vessel is again a very cost-, size-, and crew number effective solution to protect a group of the to come 6000-7000t destroyers and "aircraft/helicopter/UAV carriers".

We also see:
- An AIP concept based on the Sterling principle apparently, for the Fateh and later Besat.
- Change of Besat to a sub with VLS.
- VLF communication system for new submarines.

These are some of the critical subsystems that need to be mastered first, before moving ahead.

 

[mohsen]

Mehr News Agency - رونمایی از دستاوردهای جدید نیروی دریایی ارتش

عکاس ها رو میفرستن از نمایشگاه دستاوردهای ارتش عکس بگیرن، بعد رادار به اون بزرگی رو بی خیال میشن از کلید پریز عکس میگیرن
یکیشون که از کلاه فرمانده عکس گرفته بود

تبلور هنر در کاه!

 

[Messerschmitt]

 

[AmirPatriot]

Irans choice of the AK-630 in its Kamand modification may looked like a low-end solution to some, considering the Russian Kashtan, Chinese Type 730 or even U.S Phalanx.

However it was a choice, a whole generation ahead of those systems: Same stopping power or better (Phalanx) but more simple due to the use of powerful main array multi-beam AESAs.

The new trimaran class has from some attack vectors 3 x 30mm Kamand and a 76mm gun to put a simultaneous, massive burst of fire in front of the attacking weapon.
Soviets knew that many AK-630 is the best solution, but no multi-beam radar was available back then to make the solution simple and cost effective.

Irans choice was a brave one and a proof of their smartness.

A 3000 ton, ~100 SAM anti-air vessel is again a very cost-, size-, and crew number effective solution to protect a group of the to come 6000-7000t destroyers and "aircraft/helicopter/UAV carriers".

We also see:
- An AIP concept based on the Sterling principle apparently, for the Fateh and later Besat.
- Change of Besat to a sub with VLS.
- VLF communication system for new submarines.

These are some of the critical subsystems that need to be mastered first, before moving ahead.

Given it's called the "Hormuz" project, and the fact that the missiles are probably relatively short ranged, don't you think it'll actually be used in the straits of Hormuz mostly? If using the Mersad-16 missiles, it could give SAM cover to IRGC-N fast boats operating in and around the strait. And it has the speed to back that up.

I'd wager the 6000-7000 tons destroyers would be air defence destroyers armed with a naval Bavar-373, intended to operate further out into the Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea or even further. It would be better for these to protect specialised anti-ship frigates with ASBMs or supersonic ASCMs. If you tried to fit those bulky weapons into a destroyer it would cost you space that could be used for long range SAM protection. Specialisation = more combat power from each ship.

 

[Sineva]

Given it's called the "Hormuz" project, and the fact that the missiles are probably relatively short ranged, don't you think it'll actually be used in the straits of Hormuz mostly? If using the Mersad-16 missiles, it could give SAM cover to IRGC-N fast boats operating in and around the strait. And it has the speed to back that up.

I'd wager the 6000-7000 tons destroyers would be air defence destroyers armed with a naval Bavar-373, intended to operate further out into the Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea or even further. It would be better for these to protect specialised anti-ship frigates with ASBMs or supersonic ASCMs. If you tried to fit those bulky weapons into a destroyer it would cost you space that could be used for long range SAM protection. Specialisation = more combat power from each ship.

That was basically my thought too,that these would be used to both bolster and extend the reach of the existing land based anti air/air denial umbrella over the entrance to the persian gulf and the strait of hormuz.
I dont doubt that it could perform a variety of other tasks as well depending on the weapons loadout ie land attack with cruise and ballistic missiles as well as antiship with as variants of the same sorts of weapons,and also anti submarine warfare using its helos,plus theres also the option of towed array and vds as well,tho this would likely be used in operations in the indian ocean not the pg.
Ultimately tho its pretty obvious,at least judging by the model,that it was designed fairly specifically with anti air operations in mind.