Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[sahureka2]

 

[Arminkh]

Where is the middle part?

 

[Muhammed45]

Where is the middle part?

Probably under repair or something. As a commander said already, sensitive parts of the corvette are under repair and separated from the main body.

 

[Stryker1982]

Probably under repair or something. As a commander said already, sensitive parts of the corvette are under repair and separated from the main body.

Maybe the middle part is just submerged underwater

 

[mohsen]

Yes, some civilian images from 12 days ago says the same:

https://twitter.com/x/status/978511315672150017

Maybe the middle part is just submerged underwater

They cut the ship and transfered to factory for repair.

 

[N_Al40]

 

[sahureka2]

Yes, some civilian images from 12 days ago says the same:

https://twitter.com/x/status/978511315672150017

in the last photo of 12 days ago, it seems clear that the Iranian technicians and workers have also recovered the 76/62 Fajr-27

 

[TheImmortal]

Iranian Navy vs a rocky coastline.....who will win?



Sheer and utter incompetence runs rampant in the kabob military akin to Saudi Arabian military.

 

[sahureka2]

Iranian Navy vs a rocky coastline.....who will win?



Sheer and utter incompetence runs rampant in the kabob military akin to Saudi Arabian military.

one never laughs at others' misfortunes, especially when soldiers have died in these accidents.
in any case, the incidents of blame are present in all the armed forces of every place, including the US-Navy
Destroyer
USS Mc Cain
USS Fitzgerald

 

[mohsen]

Iranian Navy vs a rocky coastline.....who will win?



Sheer and utter incompetence runs rampant in the kabob military akin to Saudi Arabian military.

If collisions means incompetency, then with no doubt, and based on evident facts, U.S has the most amateurish military in the world, to the extent you guys came up with cyber attack conspiracy theory! yes, even yourself can't believe your level of incompetency.

Also I suggest to make tissue paper a standard equipment in your navy, specially if they go around Iranian waters.

 

[N_Al40]

Iranian Navy vs a rocky coastline.....who will win?



Sheer and utter incompetence runs rampant in the kabob military akin to Saudi Arabian military.

- After 5 Deaths In 2 Days, US Military Aviation Is In A Full-Blown Crisis: https://taskandpurpose.com/military...ocial&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share

- Two soldiers killed in Apache helicopter crash at Fort Campbell: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ell/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow

- Air Force Thunderbirds pilot killed in F-16 crash at Nellis Air Force Base — the 3rd US military crash in 2 days: http://uk.businessinsider.com/f-16-crash-nellis-air-force-base-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

https://twitter.com/x/status/982658770680631296

US Air Force VS 78.09% Nitrogen, 20.95% Oxygen, 0.93% Argon, 0.04% Carbon Dioxide, and small amounts of other gases...who will win?

 

[TheImmortal]

Yes, all those cases represent incompetence. Hence why people were fired and some will even face possible military criminal charges.

But the US ships ran into a a damn container ship in busy waters which again due to incompetence of crew resulted in tremendous loss. Iran’s case they destroyed their ship on a rocky coastline.

And to think some people on this forum were criticizing why Iran was building a “training warship”. Could you imagine if Iran did this with a destroyer?

It’s also important to know the amount of ships/aircraft US military operates worldwide and the amount that Iran operates.

Saying this type of thing happens because it happens to the US military is not exactly an accomplishment.

In Iran’s case that Mowj destroyer represents a big % of Iran’s Navy warship fleet.

This is nothing new though, anyone that looks at Iran’s military sees the lack of value they put on human life and risk management procedures.

As long as the upper brass of Iran military and IRGC are filled with mafia yes man this will continue.

 

[yavar]

Iran AEOI chief Salehi: nuclear propulsion reactor system ایران صالحی: سیستم راکتور پیشران هسته ای

 

[gambit]

Although I agree that boarding is unrealistic, like we have said there will be barely any "outer" defence for the carrier if it is stationed in the Persian Gulf. It is simply too constricted in there.

The entire idea is unrealistic. Think about it.

If you guys criticize the US Millennium Challenge 2002 as bad, scripted, unfair, and so on, then why do you guys continually touted it as evident that a fleet of small boats can take on a carrier group?

But if you want to use it as evident that the Iranian Navy can conduct a naval assault on the US carrier group, then what make you think that we have not taken steps to correct the flaws the war game revealed, therefore, PROBABLY rendering any plan you have as ineffective and useful only as propaganda?

WW II was the first time that naval fleets fought each other without seeing each other, and probably the last time fleets fought within visual range of each other. That means the fleet without air power will be at a serious tactical disadvantage. We have in a single carrier fleet airpower that Iran cannot match in terms of technology, combat experience, range, and best (or worse for Iran) flexibility. Not only that, Iran will be facing long range bombers that can launch from CONUS that can deliver precision munitions on any coastal installation that can harbor the Iranian Navy.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2015/June 2015/Airpower-Against-Ships.aspx

Actually sinking ships was not the top priority. Knocking them out was the first step. The idea for Harpoon was to obtain a “mission kill” on a naval vessel. Once damaged, the ship was no longer as high a threat, and aircraft could return later with direct attack bombs to destroy it as needed. A Harpoon strike mission kill might disable the target ship’s defenses or eliminate its ability to see the battlespace.

Here is what you guys on this forum do not understand and it is because you guys are more interested in nationalistic cheering for the public instead of quietly do research and think about what you find, especially when the US military is a lot more open about our equipment and tactics than other countries are.

Look at the highlighted above.

A 'mission kill' is a disabling hit, or a 'soft kill'. Ever thought and wonder why does the US focuses on that tactic for ships?

I maybe an Air Force guy, but precisely because I know humans do not belong in the air that I can definitely understand why ships warrant special tactics.

On land, individual soldiers can disperse and regroup at a different location and can resume the prosecution of the battle. We cannot do that in the air or at sea.

For example...And we return to the Vietnam War, specifically the air war...

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...ng-migs-air-to-air-combat-over-north-vietnam/

The MiG pilots' primary goal was to force strike aircrews to jettison their bombs early, thereby disrupting the bombing mission.

In other words, the North Vietnamese MIGs did a 'mission kill' or 'soft kill' on the fighter-bombers. As soon as one fighter-bomber was hit, all jets jettisoned their bombs and maneuvered to survive. Without the bombs, the sortie was useless, therefore, whatever target planned survived another day.

It is not that much different at sea. A man in the air will drop and die. A man at sea will drown and die. The parachute and the float vest will save the man but do not allow continuation of the mission. If a ship is hit, sailors do not disperse like land army soldiers do. If a tank in a platoon is hit, the crew will be tended by others, but the other tanks can continue on. This cannot happen with a ship. So the idea is to judiciously use precision weapons to produce enough damages to the ship that it stop being a contributor the battle.

The larger the ship, the more difficult it is to produce that 'soft kill', let alone destroy or (hilariously) board an aircraft carrier. The corollary is that the smaller the vessel, like a speedboat, the easier it is to produce a 'hard kill' with the same weapon.

How much damage do you think an AC-130 can do to a speedboat to simply disable it? You think we cannot hit a moving boat?

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/griffin-missile-system/

...a live-fire demonstration of three Griffin B missiles against small, fast-moving boats in the first quarter of 2012. Each missile successfully engaged a speedboat located approximately 2km away from the launch location.

As soon as one boat is hit, the others will execute evasive maneuvers, using up critical mission items like fuel and time. Maybe a 'soft kill' on the entire fast boat flotilla where each boat ran to its 'bingo fuel' status and must return to port. Or the smoking ruins of the port.

When you guys have not even considered something basic like sea state that WILL affect mission time, how can you expect learned people to take you seriously? If anything, I doubt that until now, you guys have ever heard of the Douglas Sea Scale.

This is not a video game. Iran is facing a technologically superior opponent whose battle tested weapons are enough to overwhelm most militaries.

 

[AmirPatriot]

If you guys criticize the US Millennium Challenge 2002 as bad, scripted, unfair, and so on, then why do you guys continually touted it as evident that a fleet of small boats can take on a carrier group?

Because initially red was allowed to use it's tactics and it was not scripted. When red sunk 19 blue ships, the conditions were changed to make it scripted.

You know this. I don't need to tell you this. Please don't argue for the sake of arguing.

what make you think that we have not taken steps to correct the flaws the war game revealed,

Because after Van Ripper destroyed 19 US ships, the exercise was restarted, US casualties were not taken into account (ie the ships were magically raised), and the conditions were changed so that the end result was scripted. We only know all this because it was leaked following a cover up. The "exercise" had turned into little more than, as you quite aptly put it, "nationalistic cheering".

That doesn't sound like a military trying to learn isit mistakes. Of course, the USN has taken some measures to correct this, like the LCS ships. But I think this is going to reverse as the USN alters it's capabilities from hitting small FAC in the Persian Gulf to fighting large Chinese warships in the SCS.

The corollary is that the smaller the vessel, like a speedboat, the easier it is to produce a 'hard kill' with the same weapon.

Iran's strategy is that these boats going at 80 knots will be hard to hit in the first place. It's unlikely your could hit them with large, long range ASCMs like the Harpoon. If you want to use aircraft like helicopters or an AC-130, then those will be prone to fire from MANPADS that those FAC carry.

You think we cannot hit a moving boat?

Of course you can. You get up close with your helicopters, AC-130s (if they're available), destroyers. Get in a nice little knife fight with dozens of FAC.

Meanwhile, coastal ASCM and ASBM batteries from all along the Iranian coastline will be firing at you.

The boats are a distraction. They have just enough firepower - some MLRS, maybe some short range ASCMs - to distract and divert your forces while the real heavy hitters like the Qader (300 km, based on C-802) and the Khalije Fars ASBM rain down on your warships.

When you guys have not even considered something basic like sea state that WILL affect mission time, how can you expect learned people to take you seriously? If anything, I doubt that until now, you guys have ever heard of the Douglas Sea Scale.

That's partly why Iran uses its small boats in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, not the Gulf of Oman which is in open waters. Larger vessels like the Mowj class corvettes are deployed in the Gulf of Oman.