Iranian Naval Power-As of 2007

[Kermanshah1]

Are you sure the first 2 aren't pictures of 2 burke class?

The site were I found them said Alvand class, and the number (71) is the number of the IRIS Alvand, but now you say it they might look a lil different...

[Kermanshah1]

I deleted it in case it is wrong, wich it probably is...

[rabs]

I didn't see that you changed the picture, but il leave this up just cause its pretty
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Rabs/032-valiant-shield-2006usn.jpg

[Kermanshah1]

They look identical to your first picture. So check your source, its rather clearly wrong.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Rabs/032-valiant-shield-2006usn.jpg

Yeah I deleted it, but what do you think of the rest of the pictures?

I like this one:
http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/7247/skamannotemissiles4ji.png

[Sajjad]

Thank you for the pictures brother, very nice :)

[Janbaz]

Indeed very nice pictures.

Does any one have pictures of Manufacturing lines of Iranian Ship buildings, Submarines, and Torpedo launcher boats? If you do please post them.

http://www.persepolis.com/jokes/Images/slider3.gif

[Kermanshah1]

Indeed very nice pictures.

Does any one have pictures of Manufacturing lines of Iranian Ship buildings, Submarines, and Torpedo launcher boats? If you do please post them.

http://www.persepolis.com/jokes/Images/slider3.gif

What do you exactly mean with that? If I can find pictures of the Submarines and ships Iran has build?

[PERSPOLIS]

Iran probably is doing the same ...


Brazil eyes nuclear sub to defend oil By ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 16, 12:36 PM ET



SAO PAULO, Brazil - This month's discovery of a monster offshore oil reserve justifies Brazil's plan to build a nuclear submarine because it would be used to protect the find, the defense minister said.

ADVERTISEMENT

"When you have a large natural source of wealth discovered in the Atlantic, it's obvious you need the means to protect it," Nelson Jobim said Thursday at a defense conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Jobim said Brazil must safeguard the Tupi field and its 5 billion to 8 billion barrels of oil reserves from other nations and from "actions that could come from the area of terror," the government's Agencia Brasil news service reported.

Brazil has been talking about building a nuclear submarine for decades, but the project got a boost in July when President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced $540 million in funding for uranium enrichment and the sub program.

Jobim said earlier this month that he wants to come up with an outline within three months to build a submarine for about $1.2 billion, the Agencia Estado news service reported.

Brazil has no South American enemies and has not experienced terrorist attacks, although U.S. government reports have sporadically raised suspicions that the nation's Triple Border region near Argentina and Paraguay is a fundraising source for radical Islamic groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Brazilian navy's nuclear program, begun in 1979, has already mastered part of the uranium enrichment process. But it lags in developing and constructing a submarine reactor entirely from Brazilian technology.

Silva has frequently touted nuclear power as a way to diversify energy sources and meet growing demand in South America's largest nation and economy.

His government moved in June to restart work on a long-planned third nuclear power plant that has been stalled since the 1980s by lack of funds.

Jobim on Thursday ridiculed the idea that Brazil's uranium enrichment program would ever be used to make a nuclear bomb.

"That's total nonsense," he said

[ironbar]

http://64.40.99.49/Multimedia/pics/1386/4/Photo/825.jpg

what is the boat on the left

iranian destroyer i dont know the persain name but the name translate to english " awesome minnow":roflmao3:

[Janbaz]

What do you exactly mean with that? If I can find pictures of the Submarines and ships Iran has build?

No, I mean manufacturing line, assembly line, production line, but not the already made and launched one.

[Iranium]

All i see in these pictures are ships built without any emphasis on stealth
besides, iran needs to stop building ships altogether and work on an extensive coastal anti-ship system which utilizes bunkers to surivive bombing raids. Right now we donot need to prject power, we need to be able to defend

[Behrooz Boonabi]

All i see in these pictures are ships built without any emphasis on stealth
besides, iran needs to stop building ships altogether and work on an extensive coastal anti-ship system which utilizes bunkers to surivive bombing raids. Right now we donot need to prject power, we need to be able to defend

I dont think it is a bad idea when you already have well more missiles than needed.

[Kermanshah1]

All i see in these pictures are ships built without any emphasis on stealth
besides, iran needs to stop building ships altogether and work on an extensive coastal anti-ship system which utilizes bunkers to surivive bombing raids. Right now we donot need to prject power, we need to be able to defend

Iran has built 2 missile boats and 1 frigate, they are currently building an other frigte. The other ships were bought, Kaman class were bought from france before 79 and upgraded, Houdonog class were obught from China recently.

[PERSPOLIS]

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8609/ImageReports/8609030495/1_8609030495_L600.jpg

look at this one has only one shaft and propeller , low survivability

it does not have adequate AAA and SAM ...

what is that ditch in the aft section behind the gun ...

[Kermanshah1]

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8609/ImageReports/8609030495/1_8609030495_L600.jpg

look at this one has only one shaft and propeller , low survivability

it does not have adequate AAA and SAM ...

what is that ditch in the aft section behind the gun ...

This is a model of the IRIS Alvand. We know it's old and outdated, although it's in good shape.

[tetram]

Don't you consider the submersable Taedong-C “Gahjae” ship as a stealth ship?
its too high and small tobe a sub, and way too low and tiny to be a ship.
I think that most radar operators will not consider this on a threat, until after the attack...
and 2 MK 40 torpedo is enough to harm a ship.

[PERSPOLIS]

they need vertical launch and phase array radars so badly nothing rotates these days ....

[PERSPOLIS]

what kinda sub is being built in the clip ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mjBDgQYy8s&feature=related

[PERSPOLIS]

if you look at the stabilizer of the sub in the above clip and compare it to this one at the end of the clip you will notice the difference ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KhMXsE4T0&feature=related

so my question is this ... how many different types of subs iran makes?

[Vladimir80]

That was a Russian Kilo class except for that minature at the end.

[Kermanshah1]

I have here, proof Iran has 3 Ghadir class submarines:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Ghadir.JPG

[Supreme]

I have here, proof Iran has 3 Ghadir class submarines:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Ghadir.JPG

the third one looks like a Kilo

[Kermanshah1]

the third one looks like a Kilo

No, it's a Ghadir, I thought it was a Kilo at first glance but you can see it is the same as tho other 2 only a different colour.

And besides, a Kilo is much larger than a Ghadir.

Here is a satilite picture of Bandar Abbas with 2 Kilos and one Ghadir, it will give you an idea of the size difference:
http://i6.tinypic.com/1zlrs5t.png

[RH53D_AMCM]

KERMANSHAH1:

Good shot from Google Earth. Although difficult to see, note that small dot near the bow end of the GHADIR in the picture. That is the SUB DOWN rescue buoy to signal friendly surface and air units should the midget submarine suffer a flooding casualty and end up on the seafloor. The KILO Class units have two buoys, one forward and one aft. As one can see in the image. Thanks for posting it.

[Supreme]

No, it's a Ghadir, I thought it was a Kilo at first glance but you can see it is the same as tho other 2 only a different colour.

And besides, a Kilo is much larger than a Ghadir.

Here is a satilite picture of Bandar Abbas with 2 Kilos and one Ghadir, it will give you an idea of the size difference:
http://i6.tinypic.com/1zlrs5t.png

Oh okay....I think they should paint em all black...i hate that green color :(

[Vladimir80]

the third one looks like a Kilo

That's much too small to be a Kilo...

[Kermanshah1]

That's much too small to be a Kilo...

As I illustrated with the Satilite picture.

[Kermanshah1]

Have a look here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=461703&t=k&om=1

It's a google earth map of Bandar-Abbas military port and you can see all the ships of the Iranian Navy.

[Iranian Guards]

Have a look here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=461703&t=k&om=1

It's a google earth map of Bandar-Abbas military port and you can see all the ships of the Iranian Navy. not all ships just a few

[Kermanshah1]

not all ships just a few

I know Iran has also got some ships in Bushrehr, Khorramshar and the Caspian, but these are quite a lot of them. Probably 60% of the major ships are here.

[Iranian Guards]

I know Iran has also got some ships in Bushrehr, Khorramshar and the Caspian, but these are quite a lot of them. Probably 60% of the major ships are here. are there anti air defense sites placed there?

[Kermanshah1]

are there anti air defense sites placed there?

Don't know, have a look.

But I thought the Alvand class have SAMs on them.

[Iranian Guards]

Don't know, have a look.

But I thought the Alvand class have SAMs on them. its not necessary to place them after the NIE report

[Kermanshah1]

its not necessary to place them after the NIE report



Better be safe than sorry.

[RH53D_AMCM]

Use Google Earth to see the air defenses for the major naval bases and offshore islands.

The land-based air defenses have the "reach" to defend those installations and provide somewhat of an "umbrella" to any IRIN units operating in Iranian waters. The air defense missile weapons on IRIN surface units are good for terminal area defense, but that limits them to a maximum tactical engagement range of 3-4 km. The 76-mm and 114-mm guns on the larger IRIN surface units have a greater engagement range and the capacity to be employed against multiple aerial targets simultaneously. The OTO-Melara 76-mm is a very good AA weapon. Naval gunnery has an advantage in that there are no hills or terrain features between the defending ship and the attacking aircraft or antiship missile. When the low-flying missile appears on the radar horizon, the defending ship can engage it. The smaller-caliber, high rate-of-fire (ROF) weapons on the larger units for terminal defense are the best chance to knock down an antiship missile before impact. These weapons have a minimum engagement range; if you can see the incoming missile, nose-on to you, and constant bearing...It is probably going to hit. At too close a range, the missile (even if hit by AA fire) will continue into the targeted ship and inflict damage. Israeli Navy successes in shooting down STYX missiles in 1973 were probably the result of the fact that the STYX was originally designed to attack larger surface units than the La Combattante series missile attack craft operated by Israel. In the 1982 Falklands War, some of the Royal Navy ships which were hit, were struck by bombs released by aircraft that were shot down. Some of the RN ships defended by SEAWOLF missile systems were able to engage bombs dropped by Argentine aircraft.

To say the least, history shows that defending ships at sea against aerial attack is a tricky business.

[Kermanshah1]

Here, click on the link for a picture of the IRIS Alborz! http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=5032&cat=500

[RH53D_AMCM]

Kermanshah1: Someone should submit that shot of the IRIS ALBORZ to the Annual Naval Photography competition for the U.S. Naval Institute. That shot is rather artistic and might get an award or at least an honorable mention. Submissions are sent in from around the world.

[Supreme]

anyone know what kinda torpedo this is? called the Ajdar

http://irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=34

[RH53D_AMCM]

SUPREME: I do not speak Farsi, so I will try to help as I can.

The smaller torpedo at the beginning of the posted video looks like a 12.75-inch (324-mm) A244 torpedo which is a license-built Mark 44 acoustic homing torpedo manufactured by Whitehead Motofides in Italy. The US supplied a couple of hundred Mark 44 torpedoes before the February 3, 1979 Memorandum of Understanding.

The large bare metal torpedo appears to be a Russian-designed SET-65. It is a big weapon 21-inches (533-mm) in diameter and is 25.6 feet (7.8 meters) in length. It is one of the primary weapons of the KILO Class SSKs. This is a ship-killer and also has a considerable ASW capability. The shape of the nose, the shape and size of the sonar transducer, and the configuration of the tailfins are the identifying features of this torpedo.

[Supreme]

SUPREME: I do not speak Farsi, so I will try to help as I can.

The smaller torpedo at the beginning of the posted video looks like a 12.75-inch (324-mm) A244 torpedo which is a license-built Mark 44 acoustic homing torpedo manufactured by Whitehead Motofides in Italy. The US supplied a couple of hundred Mark 44 torpedoes before the February 3, 1979 Memorandum of Understanding.

The large bare metal torpedo appears to be a Russian-designed SET-65. It is a big weapon 21-inches (533-mm) in diameter and is 25.6 feet (7.8 meters) in length. It is one of the primary weapons of the KILO Class SSKs. This is a ship-killer and also has a considerable ASW capability. The shape of the nose, the shape and size of the sonar transducer, and the configuration of the tailfins are the identifying features of this torpedo.

I think your right. I was checking out sinodefence and found a few torpedos that appeared very similiar to what was shown in the video. Some of the Chineese torpedos are copies of US and Russian ones. For sure China or even NK gave some assitance to Iran.

[RH53D_AMCM]

SUPREME: If Russia supplied KILO Class submarines, then supplying the tools of the submarine warfare trade, i.e. torpedoes should have been a "done deal". The US supplied Iran with about a dozen Mark 37 torpedoes for the TANG Class SSKs that were cancelled, well before the February 3, 1979 MOU. They are probably in an ammunition bunker to this day....Bandar Abbas Naval Base?

[Kermanshah1]

SUPREME: If Russia supplied KILO Class submarines, then supplying the tools of the submarine warfare trade, i.e. torpedoes should have been a "done deal". The US supplied Iran with about a dozen Mark 37 torpedoes for the TANG Class SSKs that were cancelled, well before the February 3, 1979 MOU. They are probably in an ammunition bunker to this day....Bandar Abbas Naval Base?

But Iran makes their own torpedos which are (accoring to Iranian reports) the fastest in the world.

[RH53D_AMCM]

KERMANSHAH1: While faster torpedoes are great, what are they doing? Above a given speed, the flow noise is so great that the sonar transducer becomes a sound-maker not a sound-transmitter. Faster torpedoes are great if you are shooting straight-running torpedoes at a surface target. Faster running, passive acoustic homing torpedoes may just start a circular run because the noise detected by the seeker head is the noise generated by the torpedo.

In fairness, sometimes the news releases from navies get edited and no longer say what was intended. And sometimes, critical data is "lost in translation".

The Iranian ability to produce existing torpedoes indigneously is good for the IRIN. Being able to improve and/or otherwise modify those torpedo designs to suit Iranian needs is what good planning is all about.

[arri]

Ajdar = Torpedo in Persian

it's not a name for a particular kind of torpedo.

[arri]

KERMANSHAH1: While faster torpedoes are great, what are they doing? Above a given speed, the flow noise is so great that the sonar transducer becomes a sound-maker not a sound-transmitter. Faster torpedoes are great if you are shooting straight-running torpedoes at a surface target. Faster running, passive acoustic homing torpedoes may just start a circular run because the noise detected by the seeker head is the noise generated by the torpedo.

In fairness, sometimes the news releases from navies get edited and no longer say what was intended. And sometimes, critical data is "lost in translation".

The Iranian ability to produce existing torpedoes indigneously is good for the IRIN. Being able to improve and/or otherwise modify those torpedo designs to suit Iranian needs is what good planning is all about.

Iran builds its own version of shkval torpedo called hoot in 533mm caliber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_%28torpedo%29

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI: Now THAT counts as a fast fish...200 knots supercavitating torpedo...When the Soviet Navy (VMF) brought them into service, they were reported as being used as a "counterfire" weapon or SSBN killer.
There was also a joke that since the SHKVAL had a relatively short range and a high-yield (for an ASW weapon) warhead...It was considered to have a single-shot kill probability of 2.0. It would destroy the targeted submarine or ship AND the Soviet submarine that fired it. Hopefully, we never have to find out...

But the IRIN probably wants them for the day it has to do battle in the Gulf...A coventional SHKVAL hit is going to be messy. The warhead fuzing will need to be like an antiship missile, so that the warhead will detonate inside the target instead of on the other side of it...

[PERSPOLIS]

KERMANSHAH1: While faster torpedoes are great, what are they doing? .


they transfer enough kinetic energy to cut a carrier in half , like hot knife in butter , there is no escape zone or manouver or counter measure !!!

[PERSPOLIS]

IRGC Navy may get few of these

http://img.rian.ru/images/9111/84/91118487.jpg

[RH53D_AMCM]

Yes, the BUYAN Class WPCs are fairly impressive. The SORPION Class PTGs are similar but use three screws and are planned to have SS-N-26 SAPLESS (P-800 Oniks) antiship cruise missiles (ASCM). The BUYAN Class units, if sold to Iran for the IRGCN, should be capable of being retrofitted to carry the C-802. Reportedly it is not a fast platfrom, being for use in patrolling the Caspian Sea.

[Kermanshah1]

Here some new pics:
IRIS Alborz!-Alvand class (the only Alvand class frigate werefrom there were no pictures available before I printscreened this!):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/72_IRIS_Alborz.JPG
IRIS Qadir-Houdong/Thondor class:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/P313-10_Qadir.JPG
IRIS Joshan-Sina class (gotta give Janbaz credit for this one, he posted it on an other thread but I uploaded it on IDF gallery and post it here now):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/P225_Joshan.jpg
IRIS Paykan-Sina class (Same story with this one^^):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/P224_Peykan.jpg
IRIS Nahang-1 (This one was uploaded by lifestar on the gallery, that's were I got it from...):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/504/Nahang-1.jpg
Proof Iran has 3 Ghadir class Submarnies (might have posted this one before...):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Ghadir.JPG
IRIS Jamaran or IRIS Moudge I (if Jamaran=Moudge I):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Jamaran.JPG

[RH53D_AMCM]

The surfaced submarine is not a NAHANG Class SSM, but a KILO Class SSK. Note the Mi-8/-17 HIP approaching the after casing in hover mode.

Nice shot though!!

[Kermanshah1]

The surfaced submarine is not a NAHANG Class SSM, but a KILO Class SSK. Note the Mi-8/-17 HIP approaching the after casing in hover mode.

Nice shot though!!

A kilo class should be much bigger.

[arri]

A kilo class should be much bigger.

That's a kilo.

Nahang is a midget mine layer.

[Kermanshah1]

That's a kilo.

Could be, but I tought a kilo would be quite a lot bigger...

Nahang is a midget mine layer.

According to Sayyari it can fire missiles and torpedos...

[Vladimir80]

Could be, but I tought a kilo would be quite a lot bigger...

It's only 74 metres long...

[Kermanshah1]

It's only 74 metres long...

74 meters! And how long is that helicopter...

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI is correct and wins an all-expenses-paid vacation to the Club Atlantique resort on Baffin Island. KERMANSHAH1 wins the consolation prize vacation to the Club Antarctica resort on the Ross Ice Shelf.

KERMANSHAH1 -- the giveaway is the size of the HIP.

:)

[Vladimir80]

74 meters! And how long is that helicopter...

Here is a Kilo out of the water... they are small.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Submarine_Kilo_class_Chinese.jpg/800px-Submarine_Kilo_class_Chinese.jpg

[RH53D_AMCM]

VLADIMIR80: Amazing how they made these heavy-lift ships from obsolete tankers! I remember this picture in color...The KILO Class SSK hull covered from bow to stern in a heavy blue plastic. Down to a line halfway towards the keel?

[arri]

According to Sayyari it can fire missiles and torpedos...

According to Sayyari even Iranian donkeys can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously.

Nahang is a mine layer and that's a pretty smart idea. Iran just doesn't like to talk about it out in the open. Mine layers are neither classy nor exciting.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI: Mine warfare, both laying mines and clearing them, have been effective tools of naval warfare since the 1800s. Creating chokepoints using sunken ships is related to mine warfare and has been around as long as there have been navies. You are right, it is not sexy or exciting. Like chemical and biological warfare on land, it can "bite" the user and its results are not 100% predictable. The unpredictability is the cost of mine warfare; moored contact mines can go adrift and strike foe, friend, and neutral alike. The sterilizer or deactivation features of naval mines do not always work as advertised. The last cargo ship to be sunk in the Pacific Ocean from a mine laid in WW2 was a Japanese freighter...in 1961.

[Kermanshah1]

According to Sayyari even Iranian donkeys can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously.

Nahang is a mine layer and that's a pretty smart idea. Iran just doesn't like to talk about it out in the open. Mine layers are neither classy nor exciting.

Sayyari knows it, he's the head of the Navy. Were do you get this information.:roflmao3:

I think I'll believe the head of Irans navy more than "a guy on the forum"...

[RH53D_AMCM]

KERMANSHAH1: I would like to a donkey launch of a 3,000 pound torpedo. With enough torpedo-carrying donkeys one would have a sizeable coastal defense capability....

Hmmmmmmmmm.....*S*

[arri]

Sayyari knows it, he's the head of the Navy. Were do you get this information.:roflmao3:

I think I'll believe the head of Irans navy more than "a guy on the forum"...

I look at the schematics and this midget sub can be fitted with EXTERNAL torpedo launch tubes if necessary, but it's shape and external hard points point to mine layer. Nothing wrong with that.

Mine layers are necessary if a war becomes economic. Also, last Iranian mine layer ship was sunk by the Americans if you remember.

As for Iranian Donkeys, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Actually, slightly off topic. Nader Shah used camels as a strategic weapon against the Indian Army's armoured Elephant force. I saw the armour that those elephants wore too. It was made up of Iron blocks about 4 inch square and 1 inch thick.

[Kermanshah1]

I look at the schematics and this midget sub can be fitted with EXTERNAL torpedo launch tubes if necessary, but it's shape and external hard points point to mine layer. Nothing wrong with that.

Mine layers are necessary if a war becomes economic. Also, last Iranian mine layer ship was sunk by the Americans if you remember.

As for Iranian Donkeys, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Actually, slightly off topic. Nader Shah used camels as a strategic weapon against the Indian Army's armoured Elephant force. I saw the armour that those elephants wore too. It was made up of Iron blocks about 4 inch square and 1 inch thick.

Iran still has 2 mine layer ships.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI: The IRAN AJR and its sister ships were transports that were modified for minelaying. The method of getting the mines on deck and then rolling them over the side was laborious and manpower intensive. This was one of the reasons the IRAN AJR was spotted after laying M-08 moored contact mines one of which damaged the guided-missile frigate SAMUEL B. ROBERTS. Dropping contact mines in a busy shipping channel is not a smart move and reminded others of the Libyans using a roll-on/roll-off ship, the GHAT, to lay contact and influence mines in the Red Sea. At least Iran was at war with Iraq and could claim that mining operations against shipping traffic were legtimate. However, Like the Libyans, the IRAN AJR just dropped the contact mines at random. Shipping interests and littoral countries were not informed, which made Iran look irresponsible -- The cew of the IRAN AJR was identified as IRGCN. Additionally, the Iranian customers for the M-08 mines from North Korea had not maintained the mooring cables, or perhaps had not been instructed in their use. Some of these cables snapped soon after being laid, which to be fair is a common problem in moored contact mines. The moored contact mine then becomes a drifting mine. A drifting mine is similar to taking a hand grenade and tossing it into a marketplace. Someone is going to be hurt, it is a matter of when and how badly, not if. One must really dig around to find information on mine warfare, both the laying of mines and mine countermeasures (MCM).

[arri]

ARRI: The IRAN AJR and its sister ships were transports that were modified for minelaying. The method of getting the mines on deck and then rolling them over the side was laborious and manpower intensive. This was one of the reasons the IRAN AJR was spotted after laying M-08 moored contact mines one of which damaged the guided-missile frigate SAMUEL B. ROBERTS. Dropping contact mines in a busy shipping channel is not a smart move and reminded others of the Libyans using a roll-on/roll-off ship, the GHAT, to lay contact and influence mines in the Red Sea. At least Iran was at war with Iraq and could claim that mining operations against shipping traffic were legtimate. However, Like the Libyans, the IRAN AJR just dropped the contact mines at random. Shipping interests and littoral countries were not informed, which made Iran look irresponsible -- The cew of the IRAN AJR was identified as IRGCN. Additionally, the Iranian customers for the M-08 mines from North Korea had not maintained the mooring cables, or perhaps had not been instructed in their use. Some of these cables snapped soon after being laid, which to be fair is a common problem in moored contact mines. The moored contact mine then becomes a drifting mine. A drifting mine is similar to taking a hand grenade and tossing it into a marketplace. Someone is going to be hurt, it is a matter of when and how badly, not if. One must really dig around to find information on mine warfare, both the laying of mines and mine countermeasures (MCM).

I still don't buy that argument. The amount of intelligence released about the run up to US re-flagging of tankers, stark attack, the tanker war itself and ultimately the operation praying mantis are full of holes.

At the time, Iran had more than enough naval assets to economically choke Iraq without having to resort to mining shipping lanes. Without US support for Iraq, Iraq would have choked. But since, US would punish Iran anyway. We both know that if there is a shooting war, Iran's primary mine layer assets are going to be an early targets, I would think that Iran wants to show the Americans that they would do it stealthy if they have to anyway.

[RH53D_AMCM]

I still don't buy that argument.

*Unclear, but I will accept responsibility for it not being clear.*

The amount of intelligence released about the run up to US re-flagging of tankers, stark attack, the tanker war itself and ultimately the operation praying mantis are full of holes.

**Whoa, we got off the IRAN AJR track...But would like to revisit the STARK attack and other issues. When reading reports of commissions studying the attack on the STARK, the changes in US Navy Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) resulted in the senseless tragedy known as USS VINCENNES and IRAN AIR 655.**

At the time, Iran had more than enough naval assets to economically choke Iraq without having to resort to mining shipping lanes. Without US support for Iraq, Iraq would have choked. But since, US would punish Iran anyway. We both know that if there is a shooting war, Iran's primary mine layer assets are going to be an early targets, I would think that Iran wants to show the Americans that they would do it stealthy if they have to anyway.

**The economic choking of commercial traffic was occurring due to The Tanker War in which both Iran and Iraq were culpable. The increase in marine insurance rates was the method employed in strangling traffic.**

***Iranian use of the IRAN Class transport ships was made since they were small, easy to operate, and there a dozens of similarly-shaped vessels in use in the Gulf. This would make identification of foe from friend and neutral difficult -- good thinking on the part of the IRGCN, but badly executed.***






NAHANG Class SSM and Mine Warfare:

Stealthy minelaying, smart thinking. It is my assumption that this means the NAHANG Class midget submarines (SSM). In WW2, several small minefields were laid by submarines on both sides and usually these were more effective than those llaid by aircraft or surface ship -- simply because their delivery had been stealthy and there was no warning that the mines were there.

[PERSPOLIS]

I look at the schematics and this midget sub can be fitted with EXTERNAL torpedo launch tubes if necessary, but it's shape and external hard points point to mine layer. Nothing wrong with that.

Mine layers are necessary if a war becomes economic. Also, last Iranian mine layer ship was sunk by the Americans if you remember.

As for Iranian Donkeys, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Actually, slightly off topic. Nader Shah used camels as a strategic weapon against the Indian Army's armoured Elephant force. I saw the armour that those elephants wore too. It was made up of Iron blocks about 4 inch square and 1 inch thick.

Israel lost 2 of its SAAR out of three they had in Lebenon war ... 54 personel on each ,,, 108 total ... they hide the third one ....

this is the biggest loss of any Navy since WWII ... korea vietnam Iran Iraq

falkland etc wars never come close to this loss ...

I think Iranian/Lebenese know few things about Naval Battle ....

[Vladimir80]

As for Iranian Donkeys, they are a force to be reckoned with.


Just like Iraqi donkeys?

http://www.welaf.com/resources/files/1102686209.jpg

[arri]

NAHANG Class SSM and Mine Warfare:

Stealthy minelaying, smart thinking. It is my assumption that this means the NAHANG Class midget submarines (SSM). In WW2, several small minefields were laid by submarines on both sides and usually these were more effective than those llaid by aircraft or surface ship -- simply because their delivery had been stealthy and there was no warning that the mines were there.

If hostilities break out between US and Iran, Iranians will be in it for the long haul. They can't afford to flinch and just take the US bombing without retaliation, that is their deterrent. Protection of strength of hormuz will be US Navy's main responsibility, and closing it down would be of strategic important to Iran. Stealthy mine layers are great for that.

Now this one, is a midget that clearly has internal launch tubes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmd67wRvtCk

Just like Iraqi donkeys?

http://www.welaf.com/resources/files/1102686209.jpg

But Iranian donkeys are trained in asymmetric warfare by Qods Force.

Where do you find these pictures? :roflmao3:

[RH53D_AMCM]

PERSPOLIS:

Sorry to disagree, but the INS HANIT was only damaged and has returned to service.

The Falklands War was far more destructive than you believe: HMS SHEFFIELD and COVENTRY (guided-missile destroyers) were sunk along with two of the AMAZON Class frigates. (The 6 other ships of the AMAZON Class FFs are in the Pakistan Navy.) One of the worst losses was an amibious assault ship, HMS SIR GALAHAD. The vessel was struck while offloading, causing heavy loss of life and many casualties. SIR GALAHAD was determined to be a constructive loss, towed to deep water, and scuttled about two weeks after being heavily damaged. That would be 5 major combatants.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

If the donkeys drop their poop will that constitute biological warfare?

[JanIran]

Some Iranian Naval Pics....

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/6_8501170180_L600.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/724f9518.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/M10A.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/187323_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/187321_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/187293_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/187290_orig.jpg

[JanIran]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/6_8501170180_L600.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/105422a0.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/187216_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217913_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217909_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217904_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217911_orig.jpg

[JanIran]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217910_orig.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/14_8506040580_L600.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/8_8506040580_L600.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/6_8506040580_L600.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/4_8506040580_L600.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/2_8506040580_L600.jpg

[Kermanshah1]

Pitty I can't see any of those pics, Lifestar. :(

You must have done something wrong.

[arri]

I know what he did wrong:

JanIran

put the links between and [ /IMG] no space.

Nice pics. Just looked at one.

[IMG]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217910_orig.jpg

oops ...

Maybe the links?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/217910_orig.jpg

[Kermanshah1]

I looked at every one of those pictures, it's a pitty there were no pictures of any ships I didn't have pictures of already...

But there was a pretty good shot of the IRIS Sabalan there:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/8_8506040580_L600.jpg

[lBlackWaterl]

With US carriers all over the persian gulf were does the Iranian navy get to play?

[Kermanshah1]

With US carriers all over the persian gulf were does the Iranian navy get to play?

In the Persian Gulf...

[arri]

With US carriers all over the persian gulf were does the Iranian navy get to play?

In their face ...

[RH53D_AMCM]

"In their face" can lead to bad things happening that were not intended. During the Cold War, the Soviets and U.S. agreed in the "Incidents At Sea" treaty (for lack of a better word) to keep ships at a given distance from each other. Additionally, there were exchanges of officers as observers during exercises. This reduced but did not end collisions and other accidents. Given the size difference between Iranian and U.S. surface units, an Iranian skipper of a KAMAN Class PTG is going to come out second-best if he is "playing chicken" with an ARLEIGH BURKE Class DDG.

Not a good idea and could result in the losss of a ship and crew. Follow the Rules of the Road in navigation. If Iran really wants to impress other navies...Keep it professional out there.

IMHO

[arri]

"In their face" can lead to bad things happening that were not intended. During the Cold War, the Soviets and U.S. agreed in the "Incidents At Sea" treaty (for lack of a better word) to keep ships at a given distance from each other. Additionally, there were exchanges of officers as observers during exercises. This reduced but did not end collisions and other accidents. Given the size difference between Iranian and U.S. surface units, an Iranian skipper of a KAMAN Class PTG is going to come out second-best if he is "playing chicken" with an ARLEIGH BURKE Class DDG.

Not a good idea and could result in the losss of a ship and crew. Follow the Rules of the Road in navigation. If Iran really wants to impress other navies...Keep it professional out there.

IMHO

Well RH, both sides have been operating in each others face for 25 years now including conducting several war games. Even if the leaders are not talking, the two navy's are, and so far, aside from Americans sinking a couple of Iranian warships intentionally and an Airliner, nothing much has happened outside of US subs banging into tankers.

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI: Well, the Iranians almost got the SAMUEL B. ROBERTS with a mine dropped in the main shippin channel, so they had their fun as well. In the vein of shooting up tankers, I saw some reports in the news caught my eye. The reports were occurrences on both sides in the Iran-Iraq War. A tanker had its bridge blasted by 107-mm rockets from the IRGCN ... The tanker's destination -- Bushehr. Now the one I liked about the Iraqi coastal defense troops was when they fired a Styx from an anchored missile boat and hit a tanker bound to offload its cargo offshore, but the cargo's destination was Basrah. Good examples of "unintended consequences" and "shooting yourself in the foot". The Iran Air 655 case is still being hashed over at The Hague.

[arri]

ARRI: Well, the Iranians almost got the SAMUEL B. ROBERTS with a mine dropped in the main shippin channel, so they had their fun as well. In the vein of shooting up tankers, I saw some reports in the news caught my eye. The reports were occurrences on both sides in the Iran-Iraq War. A tanker had its bridge blasted by 107-mm rockets from the IRGCN ... The tanker's destination -- Bushehr. Now the one I liked about the Iraqi coastal defense troops was when they fired a Styx from an anchored missile boat and hit a tanker bound to offload its cargo offshore, but the cargo's destination was Basrah. Good examples of "unintended consequences" and "shooting yourself in the foot". The Iran Air 655 case is still being hashed over at The Hague.

There are few issues about the tanker war that just don't make a lot of sense. A lot of the info is made up for example Iran use of mines, the Iraqi attack and other thing that led to US direct involvement.

I am not buying it.

[RH53D_AMCM]

There are few issues about the tanker war that just don't make a lot of sense. A lot of the info is made up for example Iran use of mines, the Iraqi attack and other thing that led to US direct involvement.

I am not buying it.

The IRAN AJR was captured with a crgo of moored contact mines jsut having laid a few. I guess the USN should have kept the ship like the NK's have used the PUEBLO.

The Iraqi attack on the STARK? If STARK had decoyed the EXOCETs away from it, they would have had hit the next warship or commercial vessel out there. If the missiles had had ramjet motors instead of rocket motors, they would kep going until they hit Iran. Now that would have caused a stink!

IRAN AIR 655? The US Navy's inquest says quite a bit. There was political pressure to clear the skipper of the VINCENNES, but the investigators did not like being told what to or not to find. So, they told the whole tale and that was a black eye for the Navy. The single most-glaring error was that the US Navy task force did not have just one ship that would "talk" to overhead or incoming air traffic. The result from that bad decision was communications chaos.

You have heard when a CB radio channel is jammed up? That is what the transmissions from the 8 US Navy ships, 2 unidentified warships, the approach control in the UAE, and an airborne early warning aircraft. Many of the signals were giving conflicting information to the Iran Air 655 pilot. If I had been that pilot, I could not have unsnarled the communications -- and I would not have known that I was about to be blasted out of the sky. The Navy spotters using BIG EYES atop the VINCENNES' superstructure had just told the skipper that the "hostile target" in question was actually an Airbus A300 airliner, at the moment the missiles were launched. Once fired, they were committed.

[Kermanshah1]

Is there going to come an Iranian Naval Power-As of 2008 thread now? :laugh4:

[Iranian Guards]

Is there going to come an Iranian Naval Power-As of 2008 thread now? :laugh4: i made a thread for 2008 :)

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=326585#post326585

[Kermanshah1]

Yo my boys, look at this picture I found of the IRIS Samshir:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data//500/medium/P227_Samshir_and_helicopter.jpg
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6191&ppuser=8195

[arri]

I am talking about involvement of US in the tanker war. It wasn't any of US business. The Tanker war started with Iraq attacking Iranian tankers at Kharg island. Iran struck back by attacking tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait and then any tanker of the Gulf states supporting Iraq, but went out of its way not to sink or damage ships too hard. That's the reason that oil prices didn't jump back then. Iran had every right to respond and put an embargo on iraqi oil. It was being transported by Kuwait and then US put its flag on Kuwaiti tankers and protect them, that means US entered the war.

First blood was drawn by US and it was innocent blood for which there is no reasonable explanation. Mistaking an A300 for an F14 :worried2: and even if the stupid @ss thought that it was an F14 ... How can an F14A, an interceptor designed exclusively for Air to Air engagement pose a threat to a cruiser?

The Stark incident was also sold to the public as a sign of Iranian aggression, although it was an Iraqi attack.

You see, you were sold a bag of goods and there Iranian blood was shed in support of iraq by US.


The IRAN AJR was captured with a crgo of moored contact mines jsut having laid a few. I guess the USN should have kept the ship like the NK's have used the PUEBLO.

The Iraqi attack on the STARK? If STARK had decoyed the EXOCETs away from it, they would have had hit the next warship or commercial vessel out there. If the missiles had had ramjet motors instead of rocket motors, they would kep going until they hit Iran. Now that would have caused a stink!

IRAN AIR 655? The US Navy's inquest says quite a bit. There was political pressure to clear the skipper of the VINCENNES, but the investigators did not like being told what to or not to find. So, they told the whole tale and that was a black eye for the Navy. The single most-glaring error was that the US Navy task force did not have just one ship that would "talk" to overhead or incoming air traffic. The result from that bad decision was communications chaos.

You have heard when a CB radio channel is jammed up? That is what the transmissions from the 8 US Navy ships, 2 unidentified warships, the approach control in the UAE, and an airborne early warning aircraft. Many of the signals were giving conflicting information to the Iran Air 655 pilot. If I had been that pilot, I could not have unsnarled the communications -- and I would not have known that I was about to be blasted out of the sky. The Navy spotters using BIG EYES atop the VINCENNES' superstructure had just told the skipper that the "hostile target" in question was actually an Airbus A300 airliner, at the moment the missiles were launched. Once fired, they were committed.

[galileo]

A lot of the info is made up for example Iran use of mines,

Arri, Iran did use mines, not widely though, because it could have affected their own activities.



The Iraqi attack on the STARK? If STARK had decoyed the EXOCETs away ...
The STARK story was simple. The Iraqi pilot was attempting to hit one of the Iranian cargo ship, and he goofed! And since US Navy was used to provide cover for the Etendard missions, they did not react to the inbound plane. By the time, the knew what was going to happen, it was already too late!

Suggesting that Iraqis planned and attacked STARK in purpose is a ridiculous idea. Why? US navy was supporting them all along.

[arri]

Arri, Iran did use mines, not widely though, because it could have affected their own activities.

yes and no ... Through the entire tanker war, there are no reports of any tankers (and they are huge and restricted to navigation corridors) getting hit by Iranian mines, ever. Then Samuel B. Roberts gets badly damaged but with no casualties :biggrin1: ... and that becomes the excuse to destroy two Iranian oil platforms, three Iranian ships and six Iranian gunboats.

I don't buy it, it is too convenient and follows the same pattern Americans have used from Cuba to Vietnam, and it smells.

[galileo]

yes and no ... Through the entire tanker war, there are no reports of any tankers (and they are huge and restricted to navigation corridors) getting hit by Iranian mines, ever. Then Samuel B. Roberts gets badly damaged but with no casualties :biggrin1: ... and that becomes the excuse to destroy two Iranian oil platforms, three Iranian ships and six Iranian gunboats.

I don't buy it, it is too convenient and follows the same pattern Americans have used from Cuba to Vietnam, and it smells.

OK, that is fine!
BTW, don't you sleep at night? Isn't it night in Canada?

[Kermanshah1]

IS Artemiz in Australia (1970s), the destroyer was retired in the 1990s.

http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data//500/medium/51_Artemiz.jpg
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6580&ppuser=8195
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data//500/medium/51_Artemiz_-_old_days.jpg
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6581&ppuser=8195
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data//500/medium/51_Artemiz_ex-Sluys_.jpg
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=6582&ppuser=8195

[RH53D_AMCM]

ARRI:

Sorry I have not been on-line to respond.

The tanker SEA ISLE CITY (reflagged as the BRIDGETON) was being escorted and struck a mine while in the declared maritime battlezone between Iran and Iraq. Since the tanker was "in ballast" (i.e., no crude oil cargo) the mine, a moored contact mine, made a hole in her hull and the explosion vented through an inspection hatch to that empty bunker tank. No parts of the mine were recovered which is not unusual with a light-case moored contact mine. Since both sides used such mines, either country could have been responsible, but it was probably an Iraqi mine that had been laid sometime in the past and failed to deploy properly. When a moored mine does rise to its proper depth, the parlance is to call it "a sinker".

Now comes the funny part...

The US Navy surface combatants were not equipped with mine paravanes which is a minesweeping system to protect the surface asset fitted with the devices. The cables on the paravanes deflect any moored mine away from the hull. The usual result is that the stress on the mooring line snaps and the mine floats to the surface where it can be sunk with rifle fire.

Since the US Navy surface combatants did not have paravanes, the tankers being escorted had to take up the lead and act as "Polish minesweepers", finding the other mines the hard way. The BRIDGETON found two other mines, but both of them were low-order detonations. Compared to the initial damage, the other mine hits were easily repaired using divers. The first hit required a dockyard.

Good to see your response to my postings.

Warmest regards. :)

[Kermanshah1]

Ignore the big ship (Ghader 1), that small boat in front, what class is that?
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/4-8501170180-L600-9222721.jpg
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=7046&cat=500

[Eurasian]

I wanted to ask something about the first post. Sajjad wrote about IPS-16 and IPS-18:

"Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous"

"Of North Korean origin"

Are these built in Iran or not? Diomil.ir implicates they are built in Iran.

And about "China Cat" .. I've seen boats that looked just liked that in articles that said that the boats were indigenously built.


I simply want to know which boats and submarines are built in Iran ..

[arri]

I wanted to ask something about the first post. Sajjad wrote about IPS-16 and IPS-18:

"Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous"

"Of North Korean origin"

Are these built in Iran or not? Diomil.ir implicates they are built in Iran.

And about "China Cat" .. I've seen boats that looked just liked that in articles that said that the boats were indigenously built.


I simply want to know which boats and submarines are built in Iran ..

Number of boats and subs were bought abroad over the years, but aside from the Kilo class subs that do get refits in Iran, everything else is now domestically built, including 2 classes of subs and several new boats as well as corvettes and frigates including weapon systems.

[Supreme]

I wanted to ask something about the first post. Sajjad wrote about IPS-16 and IPS-18:

"Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous"

"Of North Korean origin"

Are these built in Iran or not? Diomil.ir implicates they are built in Iran.

And about "China Cat" .. I've seen boats that looked just liked that in articles that said that the boats were indigenously built.


I simply want to know which boats and submarines are built in Iran ..


IPS-16 and IPS-18 are domestically manufactured in Iran but might be of North Korean origin. The Iranian version's are also more modern and are able to carry the Kowsar ASHM.

10-15 China Cats were delivered to Iran from China but I've heard rumors Iran manufactures them domestically, can't confirm that though.

[Eurasian]

Ok.

What are these?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8612030407

[arri]

Ok.

What are these?
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8612030407

It's a new model based on IPS-16 that is now armed with two kowsar missiles plus 2 light weight torpedoes. Navy just got 74 delivered, and I think that Hezbollah got 10 or so.

http://www.military photos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129340

[Kermanshah1]

I wanted to ask something about the first post. Sajjad wrote about IPS-16 and IPS-18:

"Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous"

"Of North Korean origin"

Are these built in Iran or not? Diomil.ir implicates they are built in Iran.

And about "China Cat" .. I've seen boats that looked just liked that in articles that said that the boats were indigenously built.


I simply want to know which boats and submarines are built in Iran ..

Well these FACs are built in Iran (they currently posses 74):
http://www.irandefence.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=19432&stc=1&d=1212440736

These missile boats are built in Iran, Sina class, Iran built 2 so far (the one in the picture is the Joshan, launched in 2006, the other one is the Paykan, from 2003):
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/P225_Joshan.jpg

Further, Iran builts Moudge Class frigates (called destroyers by Iran and sometimes referred to as Corvettes by westerners due to them being quite small), the first one has been launched at Bandar Abbas last September, the second one is in the making in the Caspian Sea:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Jamaran.JPG

As for Submarines, Iran builts these Ghadir Class Submarines, they are mini-subs but they can fire both missiles and torpedoes:
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/data/500/Ghadir.JPG
http://www.irandefence.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=5020

Iran also built an other submarine called the Nahang, no pictures are available but this is how it should look:
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7533/nahong1er6.jpg

Further Iran also builts speedboats but I really can't tell which ones are Iranian built and which are not.

[arri]

Here is a Nahang in motion

[arri]

IPS-16 and IPS-18 are domestically manufactured in Iran but might be of North Korean origin. The Iranian version's are also more modern and are able to carry the Kowsar ASHM.

both of these boats are also very stealthy. IPS-16 (Paykabis armed with 2X324 mm torpedos and 2 Kowsars, and IPS-18 with 2 533mm torpedos, possiblly skaval and 4 Kowsars.

Kowsars in particular don't pack a big punch, 29kg warhead and only 20 km range, but they are small, low RCS, can be flown to target via TV like a video game or radar homing, fire and forget, and Iran is putting them on everything.

The 74 that were just delievered can thoerically swam US fleet, and even if half of them are blown up befaor they get into lets say 8km, can still fire 74 torpiedos and 74 missiles at some poor ship or ships.

10-15 China Cats were delivered to Iran from China but I've heard rumors Iran manufactures them domestically, can't confirm that though.

Iran offeres it in the defence industry’s export catalogue ... and this is from a few years back. Since they can't sell anything, they don't bother to update theur website anymore :(

[PERSPOLIS]

MONARC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Modular Naval Artillery Concept (MONARC) was a study of the German defence industry about mounting the turret of the PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer on a naval ship of frigate size.

The size required above and below deck and the weight of this turret are not much different from the OTO Melara 76mm gun system, the standard naval gun of the German Navy. But to deal with the much greater recoil of the 155 mm artillery piece on such a small vessel, a flexible mount with damping elements had to be designed.

This mount and a PzH 2000's turret was fitted experimentally in December 2002 on the Type 124 Sachsen class frigate Hamburg at the shipyards of HDW in Kiel, when she was still fitting out. 2004 the fire-control system was tested with a PzH 2000 strapped onto the helicopter deck of Hessen, another Type 124 frigate. The feasibilty of using even the unmodified PzH 2000 with unguided "dumb" rounds to attack naval targets had been proven previously by the Swedish Coastal Artillery with tests performed in May 1996.

Rheinmetall, the producer of PzH 2000's gun system, plans to design special smart naval rounds that will boost the range of the gun from 30km with standard NATO ammunition and 40km with assisted rounds to over 80km, more than that of many anti-ship missiles.

The future F125 class frigate was intended to make use of this concept. While the intricate elastic mounting system handled the recoil adequately, adapting all of the PzH-2000's systems for the corrosive naval environment proved more difficult than expected and MONARC appears to have been removed from F125 plans. A 127mm naval gun is likely to be substituted instead.


[edit] References

[crod]

these FACs are the go, speed and cheap to produce, hundredds of them scattered and hidden to avoid early targeting pre attack. they may not pack the strongest punch but only need to put a hole or two in a ship for it to be withdrawn from the battle for repairs

[RH53D_AMCM]

CROD:

The fast attack craft (FAC) do have some interesting features. The designers of these FACs appear to have paid attention to their operation in higher Sea States. The negative effects of taking "green water" over the bow appears to be minimized. For this craft to be effective, they are going to need some over-the-horizon targeting (OTH-T). Since the slotted waveguide antenna atop the mast will have a shorter detection range that the missiles carried. The large whip aerial should provide a communications link to a larger warship, shore station, or P-3F ORION (or other manned aircraft).

Good photo of the FAC.