Iranian Naval Power-As of 2007

[Sajjad]

Credit to Iran Military Forum.com

LARGER WARSHIPS (CORVETTES etc)

Units
1 x Mowj Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built
3 x Alvand Class, Iranian Navy, British built.
1x Hamzeh Class, Iranian Navy, Dutch built
2 x Bayandor Class, Iranian Navy, US built (gun armed, not illustrated)


Alvand Class Corvette
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8354/alvandsidezy9.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Displacement: 1,540 tons full load
Dimensions: L 94.5m, W 11.7m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: 135
Speed: 40kt
Powerplant: 2 x Gas Turbines 23,000 shp plus two diesels 1900hp
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 114mm Gun, 1 dual 35mm (manned) 3 x (manned) GAM-BO1 20mm cannon, 1 x Limbo ASW mortar (may be inoperable), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes (Alvand only), 2 x 12.7mm HMGs (manned).

Of 1960s vintage, the remaining Alvand class corvettes have been partially rearmed most crucially with the generally capable C-802 anti-ship missile in place of the obsolete Sea Killer missiles.

Sensor fit and air defences are very poor by contemporary standards and the survivability of these boats in open conflict is seriously open to doubt.



Moudge Class Corvette
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1989/mowjsidejg8.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 1,400 tons
Dimensions: L 94m, W 10m, Dr 3.25m (Actual dimensions may be almost exactly as per Alvand)
Crew: ??? (est 100+)
Speed: 28kt
Powerplant: 2 x 10,000hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 CIWS (20mm, indigenous?), 1 x dual AAA (35mm?), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes
Helicopters: Landing pad only

Also commonly spelt Mowj and Mowaj, this indigenous corvette is essentially a reverse engineered Vosper Mk 5 (Alvand Class, see above). It has several Iranian adaptations, most significantly a purely diesel power pack which results in a significant drop in performance.

Another conspicuous difference is the addition of a helipad on the aft deck, requiring a repositioning of the anti-ship missiles to amidships. Above the bridge is what appears to be a CIWS similar to the US 20mm Phalanx. However at the rear of the ship the AAA appears to be a twin turret, possibly manned 35mm as on the Alvand class. The main gun is a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm automatic, an excellent general purpose medium gun albeit somewhat behind the current OTO Melara versions.

Unlike most contemporary corvettes, the Moudge does not feature a radar signature reducing hull form. In all fairness the air defences appear to be a significant improvement over the Alvands, but still someway short of the current norm for warships this size.

The Moudge does not appear to have an ASW sonar.



Hamzeh Corvette
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7920/joshankd7.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 580 tons
Dimensions: L 52m, W 7.65m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: ??
Speed: 15kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1,300hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x main gun (20mm?), 2 x 12.7mm manned heavy machine guns

Originally the Government Yacht, the Hamzeh has been modified to carry C-802 anti-ship missiles and light defences. Main role probably remains training. The boat operates in the Caspian Sea alongside the SINA missile boats. Confusingly the first widespread pictures of her post-refit where accompanying an Iranian press article announcing the entry into service of the SINA type “corvette” Joshan, causing some confusion as to this boat’s identity. The pennant number appears to have changed also.

Despite a popular press photo showing an AB-212 helicopter, the Hamzeh does not appear to have a helipad.

[Sajjad]

FAST ATTACK CRAFT (Missile/Torpedo)

Operational Units:
6 Kaman Class, Iranian Navy, French Built. (10 hulls)
10 Thondar (Houdong) Class, IRGC-N, Chinese built.
2 SINA Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built (1 hull awaiting fitting out)
10 IPS-18 Tir Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
10 IPS-16 Peykaap Class, IRGC-N, North Korean built
3+ Taedong-B/C class(s), ????, North Korean built
10 (est) C-14 “China Cat” class, ????, Chinese designed (locally built)


IPS-18 Tir Class Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/883/stealthboat1amd5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 28.16 tons
Dimensions: L 21.12m, W 5.77m, Dr 0.87m H 2.1m
Crew: 6
Endurance: 450nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 3 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes, 1 x manned 12.7mm HMG

Of North Korean origin, these innovative small fast attack boats are clearly designed with radar cross-section reduction in mind. A retractable radar mast further enhances their ability to hide amongst the clutter of small fishing boats and otherwise inconspicuous minor radar reflections. The stealthiness does not extend to the infrared spectrum though, with raw exhausts venting out of the rear of the boat. Nor is the only defensive weapons position well thought out in this regard, being a single pedestal mounted 12.7mm heavy machine gun which is externally crewed.

In the right circumstances these boats represent a serious threat, but they have limited sea keeping, endurance and sensors thus limiting their combat potential in a wider conflict.

They are potentially armed with Shkval rocket torpedo (range about 6-8km), or the Iranian YT534W1 modern heavyweight torpedo (estimated range about 20-30km), but quite possibly employ very basic unguided torpedoes.



IPS-16 “Peykaap” Fast Attack Craft (Torpedo)
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7352/peykaapjm5.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10
Displacement: 13.75 tons
Dimensions: L 16.3m, W 3.75m, Dr 0.67m H 1.93m
Crew: 3
Endurance: 320nm
Speed: 52kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1200hp
Armament: 2 x 324mm (12.75”) torpedo tubes, small-arms

Delivered from North Korea though often claimed as indigenous, the Paykaap is easily perceived as the little brother to the Tir class (see above) because it has similar origin and overall characteristics but is smaller and lighter armed.

It appears to have stealth characteristics although little attention has been paid to the IR spectrum. The torpedo tubes are mounted on either side of the cabin in a stealthy fairing. The slight bulge on top of the torpedo tubes is probably the compressed air cylinder used to eject the torpedo from the tube, and its position makes it very possible that the torpedo tubes are exactly the same as those on the Taedong-B (illustrated above).

The small size, high speed and low radar signature make this type a potent adversary, but it lacks any meaningful self-defence weaponry should an enemy attempt to engage it. Its lightweight torpedoes are probably inadequate to sink most warships.



Semi-submersible Fast Attack Craft

Quantity in service: 3 (est)
1 x Taedong-B “Kajami”
2 x Taedong-C “Gahjae”


Iran is reported to operate a small number of North Korean designed Taedong-B and Taedong-C semi-submersible attack craft delivered in 2002. At least one such boat, thought to be a Taedong-B “Kajami”, has been publicly displayed during war-games. This appearance substantiates previous media reports but beyond that much remains speculation.

Both types are believed to be equipped with lightweight 324mm (12.75”) torpedoes. Typical torpedoes in this size class have a range of between 6km and 10km. It is extremely unlikely that these boats will be refitted with the larger Shkval rocket torpedo or anti-ship missiles.

It is not clear whether the attack profiles of these boats is to lay in wait submerged and then attack at high speed on the surface, or vice versa to approach at high speed then submerge for the final stage of the attack. The boats can probably dive to about 3m depth using a snort mast which remains on/near the surface. The vessel is probably capable of about 40kts on the surface and about 10kts submerged.

Taedong-B:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4343/taedongfg4.jpg

It is reported that the Taedong-C class closely resembles the Peykaap class torpedo boat, and it may be that the Peykaap is itself the submersible boat, although that seems unlikely.

Although these boats offer some novel tactical opportunities for Iran, they are unlikely to be successful if operating against larger warships armed with their own anti-submarine torpedoes, or fast moving targets. The lightweight torpedoes are unlikely to sink even a modest warship although obviously a successful attack could immobilize even a large warship.



“China Cat” Fast Attack Craft (Missile)
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6044/chinacatsp3.jpg
Quantity in Service: 10 +
Displacement: 19 tons
Dimensions: L 13.65m, W 4.8m, Dr 0.7m
Crew: 10
Endurance: 300nm
Speed: 55kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1150hp
Armament: 4 x TL-10 or C-701 Kowsar light anti-ship missiles, 1 x manned cannon (20mm?)

10 C-14 missile armed catamarans were ordered from Chinese manufacturer CSSC in 2002, with local production. At least one vessel has been completed in a non-missile configuration and the type is offered in the Iranian defence industry’s export catalogue. The missile equipped boats appear to differ in detail from the CSSC demonstrators with a different (lesser) sensor fit.

The C-701 missile is of Chinese origin though manufactured under license in Iran. It has a 20-25km range and can be TV or Radar guided, making it ideal for littoral combat.

Many reports indicate that the China Cat may employ the Chinese supplied TL-10 anti-ship missile instead of the C-701 described above. The two missile types are generally similar in overall size and capability, albeit different designs. Both come with a range of seekers and minor sub-versions tailored to specific customer needs.

The boats pack an enormous punch for their size and have apparently superb sea keeping for their size (though by no means ocean going vessels), but their air defence is conspicuously lacking.



SINA Class Missile Boat
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/8751/sinasidetn6.jpg
Quantity: 2 (plus 1 building)
Displacement: 300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: ??? (est 31)
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed)

The first SINA class boat, Peykan, became operational in 2006 followed by a second unit, Joshan. Reverse engineered Combattante-II (Kaman class) boats the only obvious external difference is the main radar.

The 76mm is a locally produced version of the OTO-Melara 76mm gun fitted to the Kamans.


Kaman Class Missile Boat
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2761/kamanside3dw5.jpg
Quantity in service: 6 (est). (10 total hulls still available)
Displacement: 275-300 tons
Dimensions: L 47m, W 7m, Dr 2m
Crew: 31
Speed: 36kt
Powerplant: 4 x 3,500hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 40mm AAA (crewed), 2 x 12.7mm HMG (crewed).

Delivered from France and previously equipped with US supplied Harpoon missiles, these boats were re-armed with the Chinese C-802 missile in the late 1990s. 10 hulls remain but only 6 are thought to be operational. One has been used for tests, being at one time equipped with Standard SM-1 missiles.



Thondar Class Missile Boat
http://i13.tinypic.com/67wykqu.jpg
Quantity in service: 10
Displacement: 205 tons
Dimensions: L 33.6m, W 7.6m, Dr 2.7m
Crew: 28
Speed: 35kt
Powerplant: 3 x 8,000bhp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x twin 30mm AAA, 1 x twin 23mm AAA (crewed)

Often referred to by their Chinese name, Houdong class, these boats were delivered from China in the mid 1990s, and are operated by the IRGC-N.

[Sajjad]

SUBMARINES

Operational Units:
3 x Kilo Class SSK, Iranian Navy, Russian built (not illustrated)
3 x Ghadir class SSC, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Nahong class SSM, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built
1 x Al Sabehat 15 SDV, Iranian Navy (?), Iranian built

Ghadir Class Midget Submarine
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4538/ghadirul6.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Dimensions: L 29m, W 2.75m
Displacement : 120 tons dived
Crew: ?
Endurance: ?
Speed (est): 11kts surfaced, 8kts submerged
Powerplant: Diesel-electric
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21”) torpedo tubes with 2~4 torpedoes, Skhval rocket torpedoes or 4~8 mines. Possibly submarine launched anti-ship missiles but unsubstantiated.

Possibly of North Korean design, the Ghadir (Qadir) submarine closely resembles the North Korean “Yugo Class”, itself a derivative of Yugoslavian (now Croatian) types. One noteworthy feature is that the Ghadir appears to have conventional cruciform tail fins. Estimates of the size of this submarine vary greatly.

These boats are credible littoral submarines well suited to mine laying, infiltration/Special Forces operation and limited anti-surface warfare. Their torpedo tubes could conceivably carry the Shkval rocket torpedo or even submarine launched anti-ship missiles which Iran reportedly has. But their sensor fit is almost certainly basic by contemporary standards limiting their potential against other subs and advanced warships. There is also no reason to suppose that they are particularly quiet and the shallow water of the Gulf is likely to leave them exposed to anti-submarine warfare.



Nahong Class midget submarine[/u]
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7533/nahong1er6.jpg

Quantity in service: 1

A small midget submarine suited to mine laying and special operations with possible limited anti-ship strike capability. Armament is likely to consist of mines carried externally although it is possible that 533mm torpedoes could also be carried in this manner as is the case with similar submarines in WW2.

Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping.

Believed to be operational in Caspian sea but not verified.


[b]”Al Sabehat 15” Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (Submersible)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1757/minisdvsf8.jpg

Quantity in service: 1(?)
Length: 8m
Crew: 2 + up to 7 additional divers
Weapons: up to 17 Limpet mines

A small “chariot” design typical of special forces insertion vehicles, the type is only suitable for coastal operations.

Can be launched from a ship or under-slung from a large helicopter (Sea King, Mi-8 Hip or Chinook).




-----------------------------------------------

BOGHAMMARS

Small craft, often based on civilian speed boats. Lightly armed with machine guns, MRLS, AAA, RPG or mines.

Example:

MIG-G-0900 (Boghammar)
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/815/migg0900af7.jpg
Quantity: 20
Displacement: 6.4 tons
Dimensions: L 9.3m, W 3.45m, Dr 0.6m
Crew: 3
Endurance: ??
Speed: 25kt+
Powerplant: 2 x 1260hp
Armament: Typically 1 x 12.7mm HMG and 1x12 107mm rocket launcher (MRLS).

Typically of locally produced small boats that have been adapted for warfare, often being labeled as “Boghammars”. The MIG-G-0900 is reportedly a catamaran, and comes in several variants including a mini-passenger ferry. The military/paramilitary version is typically equipped with a 107mm MRLS.

The MRLS is probably the Iranian produce “Haseb”, a derivative of the Chinese designed Type-73 which has an effective range of 8.5km and has a HE-Fragmentation warheads. The rocket weighs 18.8kg rocket including the 8.3kg TNT warhead (or 6.4kg blast –fragmentation warhead), which produces a 12.5m blast radius. A 12 round salvo is fired in 8 seconds. It is not known whether the weapons mount is gyrostabilised for accuracy – if not accuracy would likely be appalling.

Alternative armaments include RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades or 106mm recoilless rifle.

These boats have an advantage in their small size and relative similarity to civilian types allowing them to hide among legitimate civilian fishing fleets. However their weapons are too light to be a serious concern to military vessels.

[Sajjad]

SHORE BATTERIES (Anti-Ship Missile)

Operational Units:
100+ C-802/C-802A Noor
100+ HY-2 “Silkworm”
?? C-701T/C-701R “Kosar”
?? TL-10 “Kosar” (possibly only ship launched units)
?? Ra’ad, Iranian designed

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8748/missilesfa0.png

C-802/C802A Noor
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3338/c802sidecamoxo8.jpg
Range: 120-180km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 3
Vehicle: Truck

Iran deploys C-802s using a Chinese designed truck launcher with up to three missile boxes which are fired over the left side of the trailer. A command shelter is mounted forward of the missile turntable. The truck itself may be locally sourced, possible an Iveco.

The C-802 family is the most potent of Iran’s anti-ship missiles being credited with generally good anti-jamming capabilities and high hit probability.

Third party targeting and mid-course update is required to hit targets over about 60km away.



”Kosar”
Also romanised “Kowsar”, this name refers to several short ranged anti-ship missile types of Chinese origin that Iran is producing. Clearly Iran is producing versions of both the C-701 and TL-10 families of missiles. Both types come in both TV and Radar seeker versions, with Infrared seekers rumored.

Both have generally similar capabilities although the C-701 is longer ranged and its radar version, unlike the TL-10 radar version, can accept post-launch re-targeting.

The TL-10 is thought to be employed on the China Cat missile boats whereas the C-701 has been showcased as a shore battery system in recent wargames. Both families are capable of shore, ship, helicopter and jet launch.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2527/c701vtl10abj9.jpg

C-701R quad launcher mounted on Iveco truck:
http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8777/c701sidekt4.jpg


Ra’ad
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7599/raadsidepa4.jpg
Range: 360km
Maximum number of missiles per launch vehicle: 1
Vehicle: Tracked

Developed from the HY-2 “Silkworm”, the Ra’ad (Thunder) is Iran’s first truly indigenous anti-ship missile in the minds of many observers’. Although China has developed turbojet versions of the HY-2 family, this missile does not resemble them.

It is launched from an HY-2 launcher suggesting backwards compatibility with the obsolete HY-2. The turreted launcher in question is identical to North Korean ones.

Comparison of Ra’ad (bottom) with HY-2:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7962/hy2vraadnb4.jpg

The missile is claimed to have a 360km range which, given its huge fuel capacity, seems reasonable. Some estimates suggest that it is mildly supersonic but I think that’s unlikely. Another observation is that the missile is not radar stealthy (not that many are) – just pre-empting the claims that some might make. The large radome suggests an active-radar seeker.


HY-2 “Silkworm”
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/4636/silkwormside1gz7.jpg
Range: 95km
Maximum number of missiles per launch launcher: 1
Vehicle: Truck or trailer, possibly some tracked launchers

An old missile supplied by China and subsequently locally produce, the HY-2 is still in widespread service with the IRCG, in both trailer and truck mounted launchers. Despite the useful range and huge warhead, the HY-2 is relatively slow and high flying making it easier to see and shoot down.

Locally designed truck launcher:
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3223/silkwormtruck1zd9.jpg

[Sajjad]

AIRBORNE ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITY

Air Force (IRIAF)
32 x Su-24 Fencer, strike bomber, Russia

35 x F-4D/E Phantom-II, multi-role fighter, USA
10 x Mirage F-1, ground attack fighter, France (ex-Iraqi)

Iranian Navy
10~13 x SH-3D Sea King, helicopter, USA (28 delivered)
?? x Mil Mi-17 Hip (Naval), helicopter, Russia

12 x AB212, helicopter, Italy
3-5 P-3C Orion, maritime patrol aircraft, USA


Su-24 Fencer / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/2373/fencernoorzs0.jpg
Quantity in service: about 30. Not all may be upgraded to accept the Noor anti-ship missile
Missile: Possibly C-801K, or maybe a later version based on C-802.
Substantiation: Widely reported since mid-late 1990s, hard proof of capability remains elusive.

The Fencer is a very capable strike jet with credible avionics, well suited to maritime strike. If reports that it is operational with Noor anti-ship missiles are true then this represents are relatively potent capability.


Mil Mi-17 ‘Hip’ / Noor
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6553/mi17noorxt9.jpg
Quantity in service: ?
Missile: C-802 Noor

At least one test launch has been publicized, but operational status unclear. The Noor missile fitted to the Mi-17 is a modification of the ground launched version normally fired from a box launcher. This means that the launch booster and the pop-out folding fins are retained. An advantage of retaining the launch booster is slightly longer range and the ability to fire the missile at very slow speed or hover, but the down side is a rather heavy missile that must exist the helicopter very calmly to ensure that the fins don’t hit the fuselage or pylons when they pop-out split seconds after launch.



SH-3D Sea King / Sea Killer (Fajr-e-Darya)
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/589/sh3dhc6.jpg
Type: Light short range anti-ship missile, helicopter launched
Range: Approx 20km
Guidance: Electro-optical
Speed: Mach 0.8

The Italian designed Sea Killer anti-ship missile was supplied to Iran with the Vosper Mk5 corvettes but was withdrawn from service in the early 1990s (replaced by C-802). However the type resurfaced in the late 1990s as the indigenous Fajr-e Darya programme, reborn as a helicopter launched missile. The programme is thought to have benefited from Chinese assistance, sometimes described by the Chinese designation FL-6. Although the missile has been paraded publicly in recent years, and seen mounted on Iranian Navy SH-3D Sea King helicopters, it seems to have been eclipsed by the Chinese C-701 and TL-10 missile types (see Kosar above).

The missile closely resembles the Italian Marte Mk2 missile because they are both derived from the Sea Killer. The European missile uses an active radar seeker and is generally more capable.

[Sajjad]

????"Attack Submersible-X"????
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/2244/sdv2gk1.jpg
Quantity in Service: ? 1
Dimensions: L 7m
Weight: (est) 3 tons (armed)
Crew: 2
Weapons: 21" (533mm) heavyweight torpedo, possibly type YT534W1

Recently paraded, this two man "wet sub" has a notch out of the bottom suggesting that it is designed to carry a single heavyweight torpedo semi-recessed. The two crew members use frogman apparatus. The clear nosecone appears to be for the driver to see where they are going when underwater, presumably crouched inside the hull. The small forward control planes are probably hand operated by the driver.

An interesting craft, it is not clear how the crew aim the torpedo with any degree of accuracy except at very short ranges.

[s-300]

the iran navy is capable and in waters of the straith if there is war the are a force to respect

[Sajjad]

the iran navy is capable and in waters of the straith if there is war the are a force to respect

Yes, I think this is because they will not do battle in conventional way, no, it is using guerilla naval warfare...

[Kiaar]

Yes, I think this is because they will not do battle in conventional way, no, it is using guerilla naval warfare...

Guerilla naval warfare isn't a very good idea. Unlike humans ships are easily detectable with radar and in the water they have few places to run except back to port.

Despite common belief a ship can't launch a missile and run away without being seen, especially since it was probably seen before the missile was launched. The first stealth ships are just being made now by European countries and the US has some due out within a few years. Needless to say Iran is nowhere near that level, and it's ships aren't fast enough or stealthy enough to avoid becoming fish food.

Submarines are of course stealthy, but the US also has submarines which are leagues (pun intended) beyond in terms of stealthyness and weapon systems.

[Sajjad]

Guerilla naval warfare isn't a very good idea. Unlike humans ships are easily detectable with radar and in the water they have few places to run except back to port.

Despite common belief a ship can't launch a missile and run away without being seen, especially since it was probably seen before the missile was launched. The first stealth ships are just being made now by European countries and the US has some due out within a few years. Needless to say Iran is nowhere near that level, and it's ships aren't fast enough or stealthy enough to avoid becoming fish food.

Submarines are of course stealthy, but the US also has submarines which are leagues (pun intended) beyond in terms of stealthyness and weapon systems.

Yes this is true but I remember reading what US military say about Iran naval power. They say it has very strong potential, they say it is serious threat because of ability "to swarm". They said fast missile boats will be bad for US navy. And all this come from US military, not Iran military.

We will see what rocket powered mines will do, as well...

[Kiaar]

Yes this is true but I remember reading what US military say about Iran naval power. They say it has very strong potential, they say it is serious threat because of ability "to swarm". They said fast missile boats will be bad for US navy. And all this come from US military, not Iran military.

We will see what rocket powered mines will do, as well...

I believe Burster already posted on the subject of the rocket mines. I don't remember where it is, but maybe he'll see this.

The swarm is always an issue. But you also have to consider that if it's the US admirals that have recognized the threat, they've also most likely come up with tactics to deal with it.

[Sajjad]

I believe Burster already posted on the subject of the rocket mines. I don't remember where it is, but maybe he'll see this.

The swarm is always an issue. But you also have to consider that if it's the US admirals that have recognized the threat, they've also most likely come up with tactics to deal with it.

If they have tactics to deal with it, then they should not be worried...

[Sajjad]

Here, about mines:

"Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping."

[Kiaar]

If they have tactics to deal with it, then they should not be worried...

It's always best to be prepared. It's good to be a little worried than reckless.

[Kiaar]

Here, about mines:

"Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping."

The problem with these mines though is that they're unguided. That means that they aren't very accurate. A hit would do a lot of damage most likely, but the main fault is that they aren't guided at all. Plus they need to be triggered by something or they could end up either not going off or hitting the wrong ships.

Sinking a civilian ship by accident would not look good.

[Sajjad]

The problem with these mines though is that they're unguided. That means that they aren't very accurate. A hit would do a lot of damage most likely, but the main fault is that they aren't guided at all. Plus they need to be triggered by something or they could end up either not going off or hitting the wrong ships.

Sinking a civilian ship by accident would not look good.

They have two option with these:

1.) They might have found way to guide them...
2.) They will lay mass amount of them, so it will guarantee many hits...

[Kiaar]

They have two option with these:

1.) They might have found way to guide them...
2.) They will lay mass amount of them, so it will guarantee many hits...

That still doesn't help the FoF issue. (Friend or Foe).

They may find a way to guide them, but if they could be guided easily you'd probably see countries like the US and Russia stocking up. I guess they may have, I dunno, I just haven't heard of 'em before.

[Sajjad]

That still doesn't help the FoF issue. (Friend or Foe).

They may find a way to guide them, but if they could be guided easily you'd probably see countries like the US and Russia stocking up. I guess they may have, I dunno, I just haven't heard of 'em before.

Hm, yes this is true brother...then they must to be careful :biggrin1:
I do not see why civilian ship will be in the waters during war time in that area however.

[Kiaar]

Hm, yes this is true brother...then they must to be careful :biggrin1:
I do not see why civilian ship will be in the waters during war time in that area however.

True, but you never know. If a war starts without much warning (hopefully it won't happen at all), civilian ships in the area could be caught in the crossfire as they try to leave.

It's not a good thing but it does happen.

[Sajjad]

True, but you never know. If a war starts without much warning (hopefully it won't happen at all), civilian ships in the area could be caught in the crossfire as they try to leave.

It's not a good thing but it does happen.

Yes this may happen. If Strait of Hormuz is closen, it will lessen this chance...

[Kiaar]

Yes this may happen. If Strait of Hormuz is closen, it will lessen this chance...

Well, hopefully war will not happen. As long as Iran keeps it's nuclear program civil like they say and nothing bad happens, there will be no excuse for Cheney or Bush to start a war.

And by the end of 2008 Bush will be on his way out and we have something to look forward to.

[Sajjad]

Well, hopefully war will not happen. As long as Iran keeps it's nuclear program civil like they say and nothing bad happens, there will be no excuse for Cheney or Bush to start a war.

And by the end of 2008 Bush will be on his way out and we have something to look forward to.

Yes, hope this will not happen insh'Allah. But, very easy for USA to come up with excuse, like with Iraq.

[Oriellien]

I hope a Republican doesnt win in 2008, so far I havent seen any moderate republicans when it comes to foreign policy.

[Kiaar]

Yes, hope this will not happen insh'Allah. But, very easy for USA to come up with excuse, like with Iraq.

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.

[Janbaz]

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.


Acctualy they have a big chance of winning if:

Their talk with Iran results in substantial calm in Iraq and Afghanestan, and gradualy..( GRADUALY) they will reduce their forces from Iraq, and sign a Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

By election Time (Nov 2008) most of their troops are out of Iraq, Iran's help have put a damper in Iraq and Afghanestan, also Iran and US agreed on Nuclear Enrichmend deal, and Republicans are hero again.

It could work guys.. just could.

[Prinz Eugen]

Thanks for the data, the shore batteries looked quite promissing.
I have a question regarding the Korvets:
I cant see any Air or missile defence systems on them
(well exept the guns, but..) arent any airdefence systems in service with the Iranian Navy? Is anything in development in the moment?

[kaiser_tr]

real pictures would be nicer instead of illustrations

[isveC]

Nice pics...

[Sajjad]

real pictures would be nicer instead of illustrations

There are real pictures of them, but this is from author of a book.

[Kiaar]

Acctualy they have a big chance of winning if:

Their talk with Iran results in substantial calm in Iraq and Afghanestan, and gradualy..( GRADUALY) they will reduce their forces from Iraq, and sign a Nuclear Agreement with Iran.

By election Time (Nov 2008) most of their troops are out of Iraq, Iran's help have put a damper in Iraq and Afghanestan, also Iran and US agreed on Nuclear Enrichmend deal, and Republicans are hero again.

It could work guys.. just could.

Time is quickly running out though. 18 months or so until elections isn't all that much time to fix a huge problem theyP messed up.


Thanks for the data, the shore batteries looked quite promissing.
I have a question regarding the Korvets:
I cant see any Air or missile defence systems on them
(well exept the guns, but..) arent any airdefence systems in service with the Iranian Navy? Is anything in development in the moment?


Small ships aren't going to have any anti air defenses. Really only cruisers and larger will have AA guns, maybe destroyers. Or missiles I suppose. On small ships there isn't any room for them.

[Prinz Eugen]

Small ships aren't going to have any anti air defenses. Really only cruisers and larger will have AA guns, maybe destroyers. Or missiles I suppose. On small ships there isn't any room for them.

:baffled3: Maybe in the Navy of Kongo....

Never heard of RAM or Phalanx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

On small ships there isnt any room for them..
Is this a cruiser then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft

[Kiaar]

:baffled3: Maybe in the Navy of Kongo....

Never heard of RAM or Phalanx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

On small ships there isnt any room for them..
Is this a cruiser then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard_class_fast_attack_craft

Phalanx isn't an AA gun. It's an anti missile gatling gun which is fairly short range.

The RAM is an American technology and Iran wouldn't have it. If you look at the rockets of the RAM they're also pretty small, and may have difficulty hitting fighters which are a lot more maneuverable than a missile. 7.5km range also isn't that far when planes can launch missiles from 3-4 miles as well.

[Prinz Eugen]

Phalanx isn't an AA gun. It's an anti missile gatling gun which is fairly short range.

The RAM is an American technology and Iran wouldn't have it. If you look at the rockets of the RAM they're also pretty small, and may have difficulty hitting fighters which are a lot more maneuverable than a missile. 7.5km range also isn't that far when planes can launch missiles from 3-4 miles as well.

We are talking about air defence, right?:confused4:
So RAM or Phalanx arent air defence systems?
Show me one corvette class ship without air defence....

[Kiaar]

We are talking about air defence, right?:confused4:
So RAM or Phalanx arent air defence systems?
Show me one corvette class ship without air defence....

Phalanx is MISSILE defense. A gatling gun won't help you against a fighter or bomber.

Also, as I said before, this thread is about Iranian ships. Iran doesn't have any of that technology, that's all American tech.

[Ricardo]

Phalanx is MISSILE defense. A gatling gun won't help you against a fighter or bomber.

Also, as I said before, this thread is about Iranian ships. Iran doesn't have any of that technology, that's all American tech.

I dont kow if the TORM1 has the capacity to protect those ships, the torm1 has 20 km of range.

Is that enough sir? :err2:

[Kiaar]

I dont kow if the TORM1 has the capacity to protect those ships, the torm1 has 20 km of range.

Is that enough sir? :err2:

Er, the Tor-M1 is launched from a vehicle, not a ship.

[Kiaar]

Also, it can only attack targets at about 6,000 meters off the ground. Very low for a bomber or fighter to be flying.

It's also meant to be used against cruise missiles and the like, not smaller guided bombs or missiles.

[Ricardo]

Er, the Tor-M1 is launched from a vehicle, not a ship.

I know.

It can protect them from the beach?

It can destroy guided and small missile :)

[Kiaar]

I know.

It can protect them from the beach?

It can destroy guided and small missile :)

You'd have to be pretty close to the beach :P 20km or so isn't that far off shore. Also, if it's out in the open on a beach, they will be easy targets for American stealth aircraft.

[Ricardo]

You'd have to be pretty close to the beach :P 20km or so isn't that far off shore. Also, if it's out in the open on a beach, they will be easy targets for American stealth aircraft.

Oh come on :D

There isnt any stealth aircraft in the aircraft carriers, the only "stealth aicraft" is the f-22 and f-35 and those are not ready to enter in service.

A f-18 is not stealthy

[Kiaar]

Oh come on :D

There isnt any stealth aircraft in the aircraft carriers, the only "stealth aicraft" is the f-22 and f-35 and those are not ready to enter in service.

A f-18 is not stealthy

The F-22 is in service now. It's been around a few years. It's an air force plane, yeah, but there are US bases not that far off.

[Janbaz]

The F-22 is in service now. It's been around a few years. It's an air force plane, yeah, but there are US bases not that far off.

The F-22 is Airforce, Navy and Marine. The Marine version can take off and land Verticaly. It has been around since mid 2006 (Beside the Prototypes).

[Kiaar]

The F-22 is Airforce, Navy and Marine. The Marine version can take off and land Verticaly. It has been around since mid 2006 (Beside the Prototypes).

That's actually the f-35 lightning II. The f-22 raptor can't take off vertically. They're both stealth planes but the f-35 is actually a little stealthier, can carrier more weapons, and is a lot faster. It can go up to mach 1.5 without afterburners and has more advanced software.

[JEskandari]

That's actually the f-35 lightning II. The f-22 raptor can't take off vertically. They're both stealth planes but the f-35 is actually a little stealthier, can carrier more weapons, and is a lot faster. It can go up to mach 1.5 without afterburners and has more advanced software.
i thin you meant f22

[JEskandari]

Here, about mines:

"Mines could include the potent Chinese designed EM52 fast rising rocket mine which can be laid in deep water, attacking its target by firing a rocket up into the underbelly of the ship, so fast that evasive action is unlikely. The EM52’s rocket is unguided and is less sophisticated than some equivalent top-end naval mines, but it does offer Iran a serious threat to enemy shipping."
I think EM-52 has as single hit probability of 80%.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/em52mine.asp

[Kiaar]

i thin you meant f22

I think you meant f-35 :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL#History

[JEskandari]

I think you meant f-35 :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL#History
i mean stealthier ,faster and carry more weapon ,not take off vertically.

[Kiaar]

i mean stealthier ,faster and carry more weapon ,not take off vertically.

It's still the f-35. An f-22 can't cruise at mach 1.5. The radar image of the f-35 is also smaller, something like the size of a large insect if I heard correctly. For the weapons I'm not actually sure to be honest, but I imagine it can hold at least as many as the f-22 if not more.

[Relikt]

It's still the f-35. An f-22 can't cruise at mach 1.5. The radar image of the f-35 is also smaller, something like the size of a large insect if I heard correctly. For the weapons I'm not actually sure to be honest, but I imagine it can hold at least as many as the f-22 if not more.
You are wrong.
F-22 is better in stealth, in speed, in agility, in radar, in missile load. F-22 cost 150 mln $ and F-35 cost 70 mln $ so how F-35 can be better and cheaper and plus it have VSTOL?

F-22 will replace F-15 while F-35 will replace F-16 (for airforce) A-10(for army) and some aging bombers(in navy).
F-15 is twice expensive then F-16. Same thing is with F-22 and F-35.
USN have one big problem after F14 retired. Absence of air superiority fighter.
Super hornet isnt capable for that same can be say for F-35.
There was even proposal of retired US admiral for buying Su-27 body and putting inside US technology(engines, electronics etc).

[Nubian Warrior]

I don't think it's as easy. Bush's approval rating is extremely low and the Republicans no longer have the majority in congress. If they want to have any chance of winning in '08 they can't start another war either unless it's, without a doubt, justified.

Ron Paul is pretty cool and honest for a politician. (I'm an anarchist so I'm neither!) He was one of the six republicans who voted against the war in Iraq and he has a great non-interventionist foreign policy in comparison to the rest of the hawkish ilk. My fav are :biggrin1: Dennis the Menace and Mike "Fred Flinstone" Gravel.

[PERSPOLIS]

nice pictures.

I think Iranian missiles don't have "Wolf Pack Attack " capability.

which makes iran reaction time much longer.

[PERSPOLIS]

Also I heard there is a Mowj I & II Classes. As well as Nahang I & II classes.

[PERSPOLIS]

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8603/ImageReports/8603180070/5_8603180070_L600.jpg

[PERSPOLIS]

one thing I don't understand about iranian navy is that they only put 4 missiles on their ships whether Missile Boat or Cruiser or whatever.

As the size increases other Navies put 8, 10 , 12 , etc but iranian navy always has 4 anti ship missiles.

Also iran is the only Navy that makes subs that don't fire torpedos???

Aren't subs suppose to carry torpedos. and by that I mean 24 , 533 mm torpedos not just one or two.

it is like their torpedo boats that carry only 2 torpedos.

or their rocket launchers that fires only one !!!!!

[JEskandari]

one thing I don't understand about iranian navy is that they only put 4 missiles on their ships whether Missile Boat or Cruiser or whatever.

As the size increases other Navies put 8, 10 , 12 , etc but iranian navy always has 4 anti ship missiles.

Also iran is the only Navy that makes subs that don't fire torpedos???

Aren't subs suppose to carry torpedos. and by that I mean 24 , 533 mm torpedos not just one or two.

it is like their torpedo boats that carry only 2 torpedos.

or their rocket launchers that fires only one !!!!!
24 ,533 mm torpedo means something like acula class not a midget 20 meter submarines.
and i think a missile boat or pt boat haven't enough space for more than 4 missiles even a destroyer.

[Zraver]

The TOR M1 is navalised as the SA-N-9 Guantlet, but Iran does not have any and cannot get any due to the arms embargo.

I beleive the author of those articles is Planeman and he can be reached at sinodefense.

F-22 is optimized for A2A and it generally regarded as the most manuverable aircraft evermade in America, it is also the stealthiest and has super cruise. The F-35 as an attack craft does not need the speed the F-22 requires.

[Ricardo]

The TOR M1 is navalised as the SA-N-9 Guantlet, but Iran does not have any and cannot get any due to the arms embargo.

I beleive the author of those articles is Planeman and he can be reached at sinodefense.

F-22 is optimized for A2A and it generally regarded as the most manuverable aircraft evermade in America, it is also the stealthiest and has super cruise. The F-35 as an attack craft does not need the speed the F-22 requires.

you said that Iran doesnt have Tor M1? or you said that Iran doesnt have any SA-N-9?:err2:

[Zraver]

Iran does not have the navalised version of the Tor M1. Nato reporting name SA-N-9 Guantlet

[Kermanshah1]

Sorry but Alvand class and Moudge class are not corvettes. They are frigates.

[JanIran]

Hezbollah hasn't written about " Joshan " ?

[Kermanshah1]

Joshan was an Iranian Gunboat that attacked an Arerican battle-cruiser in the Persian Gulf, it was emobilized by a missile attack from the cruiser and then 5 U.S. ships surrounded Joshan and finished it of.

[JanIran]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/14_8506290462_L600.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7535/2681/1600/23_8506290462_L600.jpg

Well here it is again...

[Kermanshah1]

It was sunk.

[JanIran]

It was sunk.

It sunk 1988, this is a pic taken 2006,

" Re-built in memory of the original Joshan, lost in the Persian Gulf during Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, 1988

* Announced by the Iranian government on September 22, 2006 as one of the best PT boats of the world navies

[JanIran]

" Joshan has a claimed speed of over 45 sea knots[3] and "enjoys the world's latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles." according to Iran's Navy commander Admiral Kouch "

[Kermanshah1]

Operation Praying mantis was a total disaster, Iran shouldn't have fought back.

[JanIran]

Operation Praying mantis was a total disaster, Iran shouldn't have fought back.

You have still not proved that the Joshan do not exist in the Iranian Navy....
It doesn't matter if Operation Praying mantis was a disaster or not.

[Kermanshah1]

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.

[JanIran]

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.

OK, but is does exist, and I don't know why hezballah hasn't written about it... :(

[PERSPOLIS]

24 ,533 mm torpedo means something like acula class not a midget 20 meter submarines.
and i think a missile boat or pt boat haven't enough space for more than 4 missiles even a destroyer.

I don't think u need something as big as Acula. Check swedish subs, Italian,Dutch.

What Iran is doing is like building a machine gun with a 3 bullet magazine.

it just beat the purpose.

and their missiles lack the following

1- Data Link

2- Search and Destroy Capability (Drone)

3- Wolf Pack Attack Capability (this is for anti ship)

4- Stealth Paint

5- Mid Course Correction and retargetting

6- Recon on the way to target (air launched)

7- Minimum Launch Height (this for aerial launch)

[PERSPOLIS]

USN told joshan to abandon the ship and take refuge in US , crew and their families.

Joshan commander said Nuts. US started to close and acquired a radar lock on Joshan.

Joshan broke the radar lock and destroyed a US chopper closing in on Joshan.

USN then used a very strong ECM and attained another radar lock on Joshan.

Then USN fired fired 2 Missiles on Joshan , one was evaded but the second

hit the joshan. Joshan didn't want to open a war with US while Iran was fighting Iraq directly and 57 other countries indirectly including US.

Therefore Joshan didn't fired on USN ships. A political decision in the midst of a military battle.

This is different today. Don't overestimate USN capability.

Today strategy is 2 bullets for every bullet. U saw what happened in Lebenon.

[Kermanshah1]

Persepolis, have you read about the capabilities of the Iranian Fajr-3 (MIRV).

[PERSPOLIS]

no i have not. do u have any material?

[Zraver]

USN told joshan to abandon the ship and take refuge in US , crew and their families.

Joshan commander said Nuts. US started to close and acquired a radar lock on Joshan.

Joshan broke the radar lock and destroyed a US chopper closing in on Joshan.

USN then used a very strong ECM and attained another radar lock on Joshan.

Then USN fired fired 2 Missiles on Joshan , one was evaded but the second

hit the joshan. Joshan didn't want to open a war with US while Iran was fighting Iraq directly and 57 other countries indirectly including US.

Therefore Joshan didn't fired on USN ships. A political decision in the midst of a military battle.

This is different today. Don't overestimate USN capability.

Today strategy is 2 bullets for every bullet. U saw what happened in Lebenon.



Uhmm NO!

1- the saying nuts comes from the battle of bastonge

2- The only US Helicopte rloss occured well after dark 15 miles off Abu Musa hours after the Joshan was sunk

3- The joshan openfire witha harpoon ASM aimed at the wainwright in repsonce to USN A-6E intruders sinking and damaging a number of boghammers in retaliation for the mine damage inflicted on the USS Samuel B Roberts.

4- The Joshan was then engaged by 3 USN warships (Surface Action Group Charlie) who fired a total of 7 missiels (6 SM-2 in the surface role and 1 harpoon) the missle scrippled the ship and the 3 USN navy ships clsoe din and finished it with gun fire.

USS Wainwright (CG-28) USS Simpson (FFG-56) USS Bagley (FF-1069)

[JEskandari]

If they made a new one than it does exist. I only knew a gunboat named Joshan attacked a U.S. battle cruiser and was sunk.
as i read somewhere Iran made a new ship called it after joshan but about its class or capabilities i wont remember them .

[JEskandari]

it's what i found of joshan
P225 FAC(M) is also an Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) missile patrol boat (PT boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_boat)). Announced by the Iranian government on September 22, 2006 as one of the best PT boats of the world navies.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-0) Re-built in memory of the original Joshan, lost in the Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) during Operation Praying Mantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis) on April 18, 1988, the boat's launch coincided with Sacred Defense Week (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacred_Defense_Week&action=edit) (Sept. 22-28) at Noshahr’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noshahr) Imam Khomeini Marine Sciences University (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imam_Khomeini_Marine_Sciences_University&action=edit).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-Number_2666) Joshan has a claimed speed of over 45 sea knots[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshan#_note-1) and "enjoys the world's latest technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities required for launching powerful missiles." according to Iran's Navy commander Admiral Kouchaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kouchaki&action=edit).

[PERSPOLIS]

lots of things happened and all the Navy communication is on line somewhere. But the reality is Navy made a political decision in the midst of a
military conflict. this is not the case today. Joshan hit the USN chopper.

Nuts was a short interpretation of what he said in persian. I am very well aware of the WWII battles.

[Kermanshah1]

no i have not. do u have any material?

The Fajr-3 can evade ati-missiles and has 3 Warheads, the Missile splits in 3 peaces and all 3 can indipendently find a target and hit it. This is by far Irans most suffisticated missile and it has am unknown range but it's range is estimated on 2500KM that is further than the Shahab-3. Not much information is available, all said was they did this succesfully in the wargames in november 2006 (forgot how they where called), they wouldn't tell any more of it's capabilities.

[Kiaar]

The Fajr-3 can evade ati-missiles and has 3 Warheads, the Missile splits in 3 peaces and all 3 can indipendently find a target and hit it. This is by far Irans most suffisticated missile and it has am unknown range but it's range is estimated on 2500KM that is further than the Shahab-3. Not much information is available, all said was they did this succesfully in the wargames in november 2006 (forgot how they where called), they wouldn't tell any more of it's capabilities.

Wait, so it splits into three individual missiles? That doesn't seem likely.

It can split into three pieces I'd believe, but there's I don't see how each one could track it's own target after seperation unless the target coordinations were preprogrammed.

[Kermanshah1]

Well I meant if splits in three individual peaces. Now I don't konw how they do it but this is what a Revolutionary Guard General said about the missile.

[Kiaar]

Well I meant if splits in three individual peaces. Now I don't konw how they do it but this is what a Revolutionary Guard General said about the missile.

They probably just spread out to hit a larger area. Most likely at a programmed altitude above the target the warheads split apart to hit three places in the area of the target rather than one.

[Kermanshah1]

They hit moving targets and sunk a ship (a crappy one). Also the missile has a layor of radar absorbant material around it. The general said they all three peaces where supposed to hit targets independently and follow targets that try to evade them, he stated they where succesfully tested

[Kaveh]

iranian SSK-kilo class
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2000/November/Images/submarine.jpg

[JEskandari]

They probably just spread out to hit a larger area. Most likely at a programmed altitude above the target the warheads split apart to hit three places in the area of the target rather than one.
for this task iran has upgraded shahab 2and shahab 3 to warhead with 1400+ bomb let.

[Kermanshah1]

The Fajr-3 evades anti-missiles, is radar absorbant, Splits in three, goes futher than 2500 KM, no matter what it sure is a great missile.

[Kiaar]

The Fajr-3 evades anti-missiles, is radar absorbant, Splits in three, goes futher than 2500 KM, no matter what it sure is a great missile.

How exactly does it evade anti missiles? And how effective is it's radar absorbing material?

And more importantly, how big is the yield? You can have all the bomblets in the world, but if each has the punch of a grenade, it won't destroy much.

[PERSPOLIS]

Credit to Iran Military Forum.com

LARGER WARSHIPS (CORVETTES etc)

Units
1 x Mowj Class, Iranian Navy, Iranian built
3 x Alvand Class, Iranian Navy, British built.
1x Hamzeh Class, Iranian Navy, Dutch built
2 x Bayandor Class, Iranian Navy, US built (gun armed, not illustrated)


Alvand Class Corvette
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8354/alvandsidezy9.jpg
Quantity in Service: 3
Displacement: 1,540 tons full load
Dimensions: L 94.5m, W 11.7m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: 135
Speed: 40kt
Powerplant: 2 x Gas Turbines 23,000 shp plus two diesels 1900hp
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 114mm Gun, 1 dual 35mm (manned) 3 x (manned) GAM-BO1 20mm cannon, 1 x Limbo ASW mortar (may be inoperable), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes (Alvand only), 2 x 12.7mm HMGs (manned).

Of 1960s vintage, the remaining Alvand class corvettes have been partially rearmed most crucially with the generally capable C-802 anti-ship missile in place of the obsolete Sea Killer missiles.

Sensor fit and air defences are very poor by contemporary standards and the survivability of these boats in open conflict is seriously open to doubt.



Moudge Class Corvette
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1989/mowjsidejg8.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 1,400 tons
Dimensions: L 94m, W 10m, Dr 3.25m (Actual dimensions may be almost exactly as per Alvand)
Crew: ??? (est 100+)
Speed: 28kt
Powerplant: 2 x 10,000hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x 76mm Gun, 1 CIWS (20mm, indigenous?), 1 x dual AAA (35mm?), 2 x triple 12.7mm lightweight torpedoes
Helicopters: Landing pad only

Also commonly spelt Mowj and Mowaj, this indigenous corvette is essentially a reverse engineered Vosper Mk 5 (Alvand Class, see above). It has several Iranian adaptations, most significantly a purely diesel power pack which results in a significant drop in performance.

Another conspicuous difference is the addition of a helipad on the aft deck, requiring a repositioning of the anti-ship missiles to amidships. Above the bridge is what appears to be a CIWS similar to the US 20mm Phalanx. However at the rear of the ship the AAA appears to be a twin turret, possibly manned 35mm as on the Alvand class. The main gun is a reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mm automatic, an excellent general purpose medium gun albeit somewhat behind the current OTO Melara versions.

Unlike most contemporary corvettes, the Moudge does not feature a radar signature reducing hull form. In all fairness the air defences appear to be a significant improvement over the Alvands, but still someway short of the current norm for warships this size.

The Moudge does not appear to have an ASW sonar.



Hamzeh Corvette
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7920/joshankd7.jpg
Quantity: 1
Displacement: 580 tons
Dimensions: L 52m, W 7.65m, Dr 3.25m
Crew: ??
Speed: 15kt
Powerplant: 2 x 1,300hp diesels
Armament: 4 x C-802 “Noor” anti-ship missiles, 1 x main gun (20mm?), 2 x 12.7mm manned heavy machine guns

Originally the Government Yacht, the Hamzeh has been modified to carry C-802 anti-ship missiles and light defences. Main role probably remains training. The boat operates in the Caspian Sea alongside the SINA missile boats. Confusingly the first widespread pictures of her post-refit where accompanying an Iranian press article announcing the entry into service of the SINA type “corvette” Joshan, causing some confusion as to this boat’s identity. The pennant number appears to have changed also.

Despite a popular press photo showing an AB-212 helicopter, the Hamzeh does not appear to have a helipad.

this Mowj class lacks fire power big time.
the AD is non existant.

it needs 4 Raad and 4 Noor on each bridge side that will make it
12 Noor and 8 Raads. torpedos 533 mm at least 8 .

SAMs and 37 mm 57 mm gus combined with misagh and Sagheb missiles.

it is good for sight seeing the way it is. sell tickets and take passengers.

the problem is iranian culture. they march without weapons! show their planes without any bombs and missile ! bare and naked ! helicopters without any weapons ! make subs with no torpedos !

it is their culture.

they put the missiles on the roof. that ship gonna rock. it is gonna roll like a fighter. moving the cg way up.

[Kermanshah1]

How exactly does it evade anti missiles? And how effective is it's radar absorbing material?

And more importantly, how big is the yield? You can have all the bomblets in the world, but if each has the punch of a grenade, it won't destroy much.

General Hossein Salami (IRGC A-F) said all 3 pieces have the power of 500 WW2 bombs so in total that would be 1500 WW2 bombs. Salami also said it could hit several targets simultaneously using three warheads and ''It can avoid anti-missile missiles''. He said the missile would carry a multiple warhead, and that each warhead would be capable of hitting its target precisely.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the development demonstrates Iran's “very active and aggressive military program” that is worrisome to the world.

[Kiaar]

500 WW2 bombs?

What kind of WW2 bombs?

There's more than one :P

[Kermanshah1]

500 WW2 bombs?

What kind of WW2 bombs?

There's more than one :P

They didn't give much infortmation, bombs dropped from US bombers on Germany and Japan I guess.

[amir_behbahani]

That's actually the f-35 lightning II. The f-22 raptor can't take off vertically. They're both stealth planes but the f-35 is actually a little stealthier, can carrier more weapons, and is a lot faster. It can go up to mach 1.5 without afterburners and has more advanced software.

the f-35 JSF is actually inferior in all those aspects to the raptor , it s less steathy (who knows what that means) and slower , it cant supercruise like raptor , i dont know about the payload ; it is a Joint Strike Fighter , meaning countries like turkey will get their hands on it , how could it be superior to raptor , raptor is high tech but still maintanable by the airmen from alabama , it supercruises and apparently it s "stealthy" , it is designed to launch long range aa and head back , despite all the thrustvector crap it s no agile like f-16 or f-18 , and it s so goddamn expensive they re still debating on the mass production.
apparently it cant take off a carrier cause of its fat *** but i think with jesus' blessing not only it can take off from a carrier it can actually take off vertically

[Janbaz]

m-atf asked me to post these photos for him.
These photos are of NAHANG CLASS Iranian Submarine. Mini Subs.

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/19143/2002519365852976878_fs.jpg

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/17979/2002510178499402396_fs.jpg

[PERSPOLIS]

what is that, torpedos on the side?

torpedos must be in the front bay. so if you are attacked you can dodge with minimum distance.

what is gonna happen if you are hit on the side?

[Vladimir80]

Very good diagrams hezballah. Iran can easily close straights of Hormuz with this fleet.

[Kermanshah1]

Very good diagrams hezballah. Iran can easily close straights of Hormuz with this fleet.

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

[amir_behbahani]

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

LOL.........

[Vladimir80]

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

The straits are 110m deep in the shipping channels. It is impossible to block it with sunken ships. This isn't the mouth to a river, it opens to an ocean.

[jawwal]

what is that, torpedos on the side?

torpedos must be in the front bay. so if you are attacked you can dodge with minimum distance.

what is gonna happen if you are hit on the side?

Any hit on any submarine makes it history most likely, yes they are torpedo tubes.

[jawwal]

Not a good Idea, the US can fight for it then. What Iran should do is sink 30-40 large ships in the stracht and to be sure get some mines in there too. These sunk ships will block the straight and it will take years for the Us to take them all out.

If iran can build enough of these small submarines, they would do a good job blocking the strait, shallow water would favor them against the bigger submarines.

[Kermanshah1]

If iran can build enough of these small submarines, they would do a good job blocking the strait, shallow water would favor them against the bigger submarines.

Iran only has 1 Nahang class Submarine and they have 3 Ghadir class.

[wmac]

I believe destroying Iranian vessels (submarine or ship) is an easy task for US specially bigger and slower ones.

Such things are to expensive. Perhaps we should invest on cheaper but more effective defense means.

[Kermanshah1]

I believe destroying Iranian vessels (submarine or ship) is an easy task for US specially bigger and slower ones.

Such things are to expensive. Perhaps we should invest on cheaper but more effective defense means.

Iran can also use Kowsar surface to sea guided missiles missiles.

[wmac]

Iran can also use Kowsar surface to sea guided missiles missiles.

Yes, I think Surface to Sea missiles and speed boats are more effective and cheap.

[PERSPOLIS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLmAIabHYZ8&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8T2-2T9l8s&mode=related&search=

[PERSPOLIS]

I think I found a new speed boat, IRGC used these ones to capture brits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo_OJSf_T7A

check 1.39 the boat in the background with twin engines

[PERSPOLIS]

anyone knows what are these mines they throw by rockets ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUsAKYeo6A&mode=related&search=

[PERSPOLIS]

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

[Janbaz]

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

Please avoid posting old and already posted links.

[uppal340]

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

[Behrooz Boonabi]

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

Missile force alone, too easy. They should realy go out of range to be effective otherwize, they are sitting ducks (more like chicks).

[Kermanshah1]

people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

I think they can.

[Janbaz]

Also, it can only attack targets at about 6,000 meters off the ground. Very low for a bomber or fighter to be flying.

It's also meant to be used against cruise missiles and the like, not smaller guided bombs or missiles.

You got your Killometers and Meters wrong. Tor-M1 range is 20K. Each Killometer is 1000 Meter, so Tor-M1 range is 20,000 meters.

[Janbaz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uppal340 http://www.irandefence.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=199164#post199164)
people please tell honestly can u think iranian navy can take US navy......

I think they can.

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.

[JanIran]

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.


Do you think they will use a nuclear bomb...?

[Janbaz]

Do you think they will use a nuclear bomb...?

Well, US has said this since 2002 that if they see they are on the brink of losing any war, they will use Tactical Nuclear weapons.

[Kermanshah1]

Weapon to weapons bullet for bullet, and ship for ship, Iran has NO CHANCE againt US NAVY. Iran knows it, US Navy knows it and every one else knows it.



Only the US navy wouldn't be fighting, a part of the US nacy will be fighting, and then Iran sranda a chance.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Only the US navy wouldn't be fighting, a part of the US nacy will be fighting, and then Iran sranda a chance.

Missile force would be the best offencive for both parties.

[Kermanshah1]

Missile force would be the best offencive for both parties.

What kind of ships and how many of each kind does the US all have in the Persian gulf?

[KingoftheHill]

What kind of ships and how many of each kind does the US all have in the Persian gulf?

Stop being a post whore and search on google and this site.

[Kermanshah1]

Stop being a post whore and search on google and this site.

I couldn't find it. So what for ships do they have?

[JanIran]

I couldn't find it. So what for ships do they have?

I can't either find it. But I found that the US has more than 10.000 military personnel in the persian gulf.

[Kermanshah1]

I can't either find it. But I found that the US has more than 10.000 military personnel in the persian gulf.

So what Iran has 18,000 Navy (includes 2,600 Marines and 2,000 aviation men) and 20,000 IRGC Navy wich totals 38,000

[JanIran]

So what Iran has 18,000 Navy (includes 2,600 Marines and 2,000 aviation men) and 20,000 IRGC Navy wich totals 38,000

The important thing is which weapons you use against each other...
Who has the more, modern, powerful etc...
In this case it's navy, and you know that the US navy is more powerful than the Iranian navy. So it doens't really matter how many men Iran has against the US.
I would rather want Iran to have a more powerful navy (more powerful destroyers, frigates) than so many military personnel...

[Kermanshah1]

The important thing is which weapons you use against each other...
Who has the more, modern, powerful etc...
In this case it's navy, and you know that the US navy is more powerful than the Iranian navy. So it doens't really matter how many men Iran has against the US.
I would rather want Iran to have a more powerful navy (more powerful destroyers, frigates) than so many military personnel...

Irans destroyers are realy just to laugh about, 3 destroyers from the 40s, 2 are retired and 1 is non-operational.

[JanIran]

Irans destroyers are realy just to laugh about, 3 destroyers from the 40s, 2 are retired and 1 is non-operational.

Yes, so if it comes a war against the US and Iran. Iran most bomb... :biggrin1:

[Kermanshah1]

Yes, so if it comes a war against the US and Iran. Iran most bomb... :biggrin1:

They can use their other ships (although thier large vessels are rubbish too).

[JanIran]

They can use their other ships (although thier large vessels are rubbish too).

With aircrafts... :smile1:

[Kermanshah1]

With aircrafts... :smile1:

Recon Iran could beat the US in air? When I showed oli the list of Iranian fighters he reconed they could and that we where underrating the IRIAF and the IRGCAF.

[JanIran]

Recon Iran could beat the US in air? When I showed oli the list of Iranian fighters he reconed they could and that we where underrating the IRIAF and the IRGCAF.

I didn't meant beat, i meant bomb... with missiles...

[PERSPOLIS]

hey everyone

recently i had found a lot of clips of old iranian manouvers and videos on the utube...

these look like the old ones , but they r not , they contain more info even by few seconds ...

it seems to me that iran iran has edited these old clips with more critical info

if u r enthusiastic be patient and watch them carefully but these are not the old clips. trust me.

[Janbaz]

This is what Tom Cooper said recently about possible Iranian and US confelect. If you are not familiar with Tom Cooper, I suggest you to look him up. He has written several books (with Farzad Bishop) about Iran-Iraq war and F-14, F-4 and IRIAF role in that war. I think he is based in Austria.


As mighty as the US air power is, one should not overestimate it. Then, when one draws some parallels with specific recent conflicts, there is a lot to find showing that this all-mighty air power is anything but all-mighty.

The US attacks on Serbia, in 1999, Afghanistan, in 2001, and Iraq, in 2003, have provided a plethora of very good examples for this.

As first, all these wars were proceeded by a lenghty period of tensions (the shortest was that before Afghanistan, and even this has taken a month or so), leaving the defending side plenty of time to move all of its sensitive assets out of the potentially targeted zones. It is, just for example, meanwhile well-known (or, should I say: it should be well-known), that the Serbs have moved all of their units out of their barracks, garages etc. three days before the NATO-strike, in 1999, so that these were never hit there. All the Iraqi ministries and government buildings hit in the "shock & awe" offensive, back in March 2003, were completely empty. Even their archives were empty (either evacuated and hidden, or destroyed well in advance of the coming conflict). Except for empty houses, all the cruise missiles and PGMs spent during this offensive have actually had absolutely no impact at all on Iraqi fighting capability.

One of the most obscure facts about the US air raids against Afghanistan, in October/November 2001, was that the USN (sometimes USAF as well) was spending millions of Bucks worth laser-guided-bombs to bomb the crap out of aircraft wreckage strewn around numerous Afghan airfields, especially so in the case of Baghram. This was extremely poor work of US intel: most of the Afghan aircraft wrecks hit on such occassions, namely, were MiG-17s, An-24/26s, few An-12s and even some Il-28s that were known (in public) to be inoperational already since the late 1980s. Most of these wrecks could be even seen on photographs taken by various aviation journalists and published in such magazines like World Air Power Journal or Aircraft Illustrated, already years before that!

Serbia and Montenegro was a very small country back in 1999 (Serbia is even smaller now), with only five or six main airfields at the time, as compared with over 60 in Iran, which is something like 20 times bigger (Iran is, BTW, also two and a half or three times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan). Yet, except in Podgorica, where 29 training aircraft hidden in underground bunkers have been destroyed, the main Serbian interceptor force of MiG-29s has been hardly hit at all on the ground. If I recall correctly, despite quite massive air raids and cruise missile attacks of Batajnica, Nis etc., only one MiG-29 was destroyed on the ground in the course of some 70 days. The USAF went to plink dozens of decoys, but Serbian MiG-21s and J-22 Oraos remained operational and flew some 200 sorties against various targets in Kosovo during that conflict without disturbance on the part of NATO air power.

Again: Iran is much bigger than Serbia, and it has much higher mountains as well, with much more airfields. The country is nothing like the flat deserts that cover most of Iraq, or as empty as Afghanistan. There is much more space to hide things of any value, and it is obvious that Iranians are already since years hard at work to do exactly that. The US intel community has immense problems with intelligence gathering due to various mistakes done in the recent years, and the situation is not likely to improve soon. They'd have literal mountains of problems just to find the IRIAF on the ground.

Besides, Iran is not really weakened by years of sanctions, nor ruined by wars, but rather managed to develop its own, strong defence sector - something that was neither the case with Serbia or Iraq, and even less so with Afghanistan. Which means: even if they cannot replace hardware "made in USA", and currently still in service, they can (as they already have) developed their own, unusual and new, weapons and tactics to hit back.

The IRIAF would also not be held back like IrAF was in 2003, or restricted by politicians to act a specific way, like Serbian AF in 1999. Still, due to their experiences with Iraqis and Serbs, the Americans are always very glad to underestimate the Iranians - which would be an important weakness on their part. This means that the USA couldn't expect to establish anything like air superiority they did establish over Serbia in 1999, or Iraq in 2003. And, that means that the IRIAF would very likely remain capable (at least for few weeks) to continue operating under specific circumstances, even in face of a much stronger onslaught. Quite on the contrary, the longer the war would last, the more time would be left to the IRIAF to adapt to eventual new US weapons, tactics and thinking.

It's rather so that the IRIAF would most likely be forced to operate as a kind of an "aerial guerrilla". The Iranians know they could not face the US air power in a frontal engagement; that they'd have to accept the first blow and give up challenging the US control of Iranian skies right from the start. Rather than this, they'd have to go for playing a thorn in the side; hitting back where and when unexpected, delivering pointed blows to show that they are still around, and making US operations costly. The IRIAF would have to move its fighter fleet and disperse it on various airfields in the centre of the country, where these would either be out of reach by US air power, or where the Americans could reach them only irregularly. When airborne, the Iranians would have to operate at very low levels most of the times, making extensive use of terrain masking, and could not reach back on even what little they now have of a radar net for early warning. That means that the overall situational awareness of their pilots would be relatively low, and they could conduct only hit-and-run operations. But, they'd be able to deploy a large number of UAVs for various purposes - including target detection and early warning, and these would be of immense help.

In the case of being detected prematurely, they'd have low escape chances, but otherwise they could still hit, cause damage, evade and disappear more often than not.

Add to this the fact that the IRIAF has now had more than enough opportunities to study the US operations over Iraq: ever since 1991 the Iranians are sitting "front row" and watching what's going on beyond their borders. They know much about the US tactics, about its electronic orbat and capabilities. They also know what they need to hide or defend, while the Americans are not even 100% sure what do they really need to hit in order to achieve their objectives.

So, the situation is far from being a simple as, "the US air power would roll over Iranian airfields and that would be that". Anything but an outright invasion of Iran would be insufficient to even significantly degrade IRIAF's capability for (at least) point defence. And, the US military is simply not in condition for such an act: at best they could mount a big aerial offensive.

[Kiaar]

Thing is though that article seemed to point to lack of good intelligence, not lack of air power. Lack of good, reliable intelligence is something I've not seen denied.

[Janbaz]

This picture is an Iranian China Cat belongs to IRGC.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/6044/chinacatsp3.jpg

[Zraver]

as Afghanistan. There is much more space to hide things of any value, and it is obvious that Iranians are already since years hard at work to do exactly that. The US intel community has immense problems with intelligence gathering due to various mistakes done in the recent years, and the situation is not likely to improve soon. They'd have literal mountains of problems just to find the IRIAF on the ground.

Besides, Iran is not really weakened by years of sanctions, nor ruined by wars, but rather managed to develop its own, strong defence sector - something that was neither the case with Serbia or Iraq, and even less so with Afghanistan. Which means: even if they cannot replace hardware "made in USA", and currently still in service, they can (as they already have) developed their own, unusual and new, weapons and tactics to hit back.

The IRIAF would also not be held back like IrAF was in 2003, or restricted by politicians to act a specific way, like Serbian AF in 1999. Still, due to their experiences with Iraqis and Serbs, the Americans are always very glad to underestimate the Iranians - which would be an important weakness on their part. This means that the USA couldn't expect to establish anything like air superiority they did establish over Serbia in 1999, or Iraq in 2003. And, that means that the IRIAF would very likely remain capable (at least for few weeks) to continue operating under specific circumstances, even in face of a much stronger onslaught. Quite on the contrary, the longer the war would last, the more time would be left to the IRIAF to adapt to eventual new US weapons, tactics and thinking.

It's rather so that the IRIAF would most likely be forced to operate as a kind of an "aerial guerrilla". The Iranians know they could not face the US air power in a frontal engagement; that they'd have to accept the first blow and give up challenging the US control of Iranian skies right from the start. Rather than this, they'd have to go for playing a thorn in the side; hitting back where and when unexpected, delivering pointed blows to show that they are still around, and making US operations costly. The IRIAF would have to move its fighter fleet and disperse it on various airfields in the centre of the country, where these would either be out of reach by US air power, or where the Americans could reach them only irregularly. When airborne, the Iranians would have to operate at very low levels most of the times, making extensive use of terrain masking, and could not reach back on even what little they now have of a radar net for early warning. That means that the overall situational awareness of their pilots would be relatively low, and they could conduct only hit-and-run operations. But, they'd be able to deploy a large number of UAVs for various purposes - including target detection and early warning, and these would be of immense help.

In the case of being detected prematurely, they'd have low escape chances, but otherwise they could still hit, cause damage, evade and disappear more often than not.

Add to this the fact that the IRIAF has now had more than enough opportunities to study the US operations over Iraq: ever since 1991 the Iranians are sitting "front row" and watching what's going on beyond their borders. They know much about the US tactics, about its electronic orbat and capabilities. They also know what they need to hide or defend, while the Americans are not even 100% sure what do they really need to hit in order to achieve their objectives.

So, the situation is far from being a simple as, "the US air power would roll over Iranian airfields and that would be that". Anything but an outright invasion of Iran would be insufficient to even significantly degrade IRIAF's capability for (at least) point defence. And, the US military is simply not in condition for such an act: at best they could mount a big aerial offensive

1- In the air part of anywar Iran will be at a huge disadvantage, so large it might as well be called suicidal. US AWACs and other platforms can look deep inside Ira with thier look down capability and spot the light fighters amssing for a sortie even at low level. They can then vector high flying American fighters to intercept while the iranians denied radar support thanks to stealth attacks are blind flying augely in the direction of the enemy probalby the E-2 or E-3 radar emissions.

And flying towards a race they cant win at low level. If the fighters stay low as defense against the AIM-120 C or D then tehy have to go slow ans will not be fast enough to catch the high flying radar craft. if they gain height to increase speed they move into the ideal envelope for the AMRAAM

2- Most of Iran's fighters are very short ranged, meaning interior dispersal to minimize omb effects leave coverage gaps that ar eunavoidable. For every site that needed 2 fighters over head 24/7 Iran woul have to deploy 21 craft 18/2 on 3 hour patrols (1 pair in the air, 1 pair fueled and ready to launch" ready 5" 1 pair on 10 minute alert, 2 pair in for service affer last patrol, 3 pair off duty, 1 pair being breifed, 1 pair on leave at a time, and 1 spare airframe Iran does not have enough fighters to keep that pace. UK force s and alter Luftwaffe forces in WW2 subjected to that schedule took a horrible toll.

The US with A2A refueling, more effecient engines, and now super cruise can wear the IrAF out and strike when they notice gaps.

3- If Iran insteads triesto use its air force the way it is desinged (a a surge force to ge tthe SU-24's through) they can get off 1-2 good wieghty strikes beofre attrition renders the figther force efectively destroyed in combat. I don't know how good the American radars really are but if the Sentry's and Hawkeyes can spot the fencers through the foighter swarm and dorect missiels onto them then the IrAF's ofensive punch is destroyed no matter what the fighter escort does.

[Behrooz Boonabi]

1- In the air part of anywar Iran will be at a huge disadvantage, so large it might as well be called suicidal. US AWACs and other platforms can look deep inside Ira with thier look down capability and spot the light fighters amssing for a sortie even at low level. They can then vector high flying American fighters to intercept while the iranians denied radar support thanks to stealth attacks are blind flying augely in the direction of the enemy probalby the E-2 or E-3 radar emissions.

And flying towards a race they cant win at low level. If the fighters stay low as defense against the AIM-120 C or D then tehy have to go slow ans will not be fast enough to catch the high flying radar craft. if they gain height to increase speed they move into the ideal envelope for the AMRAAM

2- Most of Iran's fighters are very short ranged, meaning interior dispersal to minimize omb effects leave coverage gaps that ar eunavoidable. For every site that needed 2 fighters over head 24/7 Iran woul have to deploy 21 craft 18/2 on 3 hour patrols (1 pair in the air, 1 pair fueled and ready to launch" ready 5" 1 pair on 10 minute alert, 2 pair in for service affer last patrol, 3 pair off duty, 1 pair being breifed, 1 pair on leave at a time, and 1 spare airframe Iran does not have enough fighters to keep that pace. UK force s and alter Luftwaffe forces in WW2 subjected to that schedule took a horrible toll.

The US with A2A refueling, more effecient engines, and now super cruise can wear the IrAF out and strike when they notice gaps.

3- If Iran insteads triesto use its air force the way it is desinged (a a surge force to ge tthe SU-24's through) they can get off 1-2 good wieghty strikes beofre attrition renders the figther force efectively destroyed in combat. I don't know how good the American radars really are but if the Sentry's and Hawkeyes can spot the fencers through the foighter swarm and dorect missiels onto them then the IrAF's ofensive punch is destroyed no matter what the fighter escort does.

It wont be like that at all. It will be a ballistic missile fight. Iran will not use the airforce untile the carriers are sunk, the escorts will be picked of using missiles, torpedos, mines. Anyway, it will be a missile battle and the aircraft that managed to get off their decks wont even know where to find the mobile targets.

Attacking from the gulf is a bad idea.

[Kermanshah1]

It wont be like that at all. It will be a ballistic missile fight. Iran will not use the airforce untile the carriers are sunk, the escorts will be picked of using missiles, torpedos, mines. Anyway, it will be a missile battle and the aircraft that managed to get off their decks wont even know where to find the mobile targets.

Attacking from the gulf is a bad idea.

Exactly, if I was the leader of Irans air-force I wouldn't send my planes up (untill the carriers are sunk)

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Exactly, if I was the leader of Irans air-force I wouldn't send my planes up (untill the carriers are sunk)

Or atleast a few holes on the deck.

[Kermanshah1]

Or atleast a few holes on the deck.

Yes if they're unoperatable it's good enough. I think once one is heavily damaged they should capture it. Iran shoudl only unse their airforce against US soldiers on ground without the Us having planes involved or against Us ships without the US having planes involved.

[Kiaar]

Yes if they're unoperatable it's good enough. I think once one is heavily damaged they should capture it. Iran shoudl only unse their airforce against US soldiers on ground without the Us having planes involved or against Us ships without the US having planes involved.

Capture it? Not likely. Even Iran did disable the deck, there is still an entire fleet around the carrier. And even if this unlikely situation occurred where the entire fleet was disabled by massive salvos of missiles, the ships would probably be scuttled long before any Iranian soldiers could get control.

[Zraver]

It wont be like that at all. It will be a ballistic missile fight. Iran will not use the airforce untile the carriers are sunk, the escorts will be picked of using missiles, torpedos, mines. Anyway, it will be a missile battle and the aircraft that managed to get off their decks wont even know where to find the mobile targets.

Attacking from the gulf is a bad idea.

1- the US wont have cariers in the Gulf itself when the war starts

2- using ballistic missiles is foolish they don't have the ability to hit moving targets. With CEP's around 50M and a 5 minute flight time the carrier will have moved 4.65km from where it was.

3- The US Aegis system can shoot down ballistic tracks and even engage both cruise misisle and ballistic tracks at the same time.

How does Iran counter 5 carriers sitting off its coast in the Indian Ocean from 150-200km 350 4+ gen aircraft , 10+ aegis vessels, 10,000 USMC etc, more than enough power to take Abu Musa and the other Islands speciually since the USMC has OTH capability and only has to take the missiel firing shores.

[Vladimir80]

3- The US Aegis system can shoot down ballistic tracks and even engage both cruise misisle and ballistic tracks at the same time.

AEGIS equipped vessels with ballistic software upgrades are few and those are stationed in the Pacific to protect Taiwan and Japan. None of the AEGIS in the Persian Gulf have that capabilty yet and even if they did the compliment of SM-3s would only be a handful as the rest of the tubes carry TLAMs and SM-2s.


How does Iran counter 5 carriers sitting off its coast in the Indian Ocean from 150-200km 350 4+ gen aircraft , 10+ aegis vessels, 10,000 USMC etc, more than enough power to take Abu Musa and the other Islands speciually since the USMC has OTH capability and only has to take the missiel firing shores.

With the need to maintain vigil in the Pacific and the decom of another carrier without replacement only 4 carriers would be available for surge. They would never make it past the Straights so airpower would have to be deleivered from well beyond the horizon lowering sortie generation rates. Air strikes would have to pound the area for days to make sure as much could be taken out before amphibious operations began. From my understanding there are hidden bunkers that can keep thousands safe. 10,000 marines would have a hard time taking that many defended troops of IRGC. USMC would have to do far more than taking the islands, taking the shore and holding them would be impossible with depleted USMC numbers with millions of besij fighters.

[Zraver]

AEGIS equipped vessels with ballistic software upgrades are few and those are stationed in the Pacific to protect Taiwan and Japan. None of the AEGIS in the Persian Gulf have that capabilty yet and even if they did the compliment of SM-3s would only be a handful as the rest of the tubes carry TLAMs and SM-2s.



With the need to maintain vigil in the Pacific and the decom of another carrier without replacement only 4 carriers would be available for surge. They would never make it past the Straights so airpower would have to be deleivered from well beyond the horizon lowering sortie generation rates. Air strikes would have to pound the area for days to make sure as much could be taken out before amphibious operations began. From my understanding there are hidden bunkers that can keep thousands safe. 10,000 marines would have a hard time taking that many defended troops of IRGC. USMC would have to do far more than taking the islands, taking the shore and holding them would be impossible with depleted USMC numbers with millions of besij fighters.

Millions of fighters hahahaha, the entire garrison of the Islands is only 8,000.
Te USMC only has to take the missiel firign shore of the islands while SEALs take the off shore platforms. Iran only has about 100 large long range AshM and many of those are older "silkworm" types. The overwhelming bulk of Iran's missiles cannot reach the strait except by boat, submarine, or Island firing.

Also it would not take days to reduce the defences. The USMC is not the IDF and the US is not Israel. We are far better motivated, beter equipped, led, and trained for the mission tasking. Iraqi insurgents (Shia and Sunni) after 4 years have still not been able to stop a single US assault no matter how hard they dug in or how willing to die they were.

The US is still building carriers the next slated to begin construction if the G.R. Ford. The US can surge 5 and still keep the pacific covered well enough. China does not have enough amphib or follow on capacity to attack taiwan and won't risk an adventure while oil supplies (and thus its economy and trade with the US) are at risk. In Short China will want a quick US victory and will feed Iran to the dogs politcally in the UN.

Sortie rate does not need to be all that high (per carrier) as far as supporting the USMC goes. Naval air will only have 2 primary missions. USMC support and strikes on the coastal radar net and boat sheds. USAF craft not allowe dot be used offensively vs Iran (at least until Iran attaks the GCC) can be sued for defensive escort missions vs Iran's small boat surge

[Kermanshah1]

US is not like Israel. We are far better motivated

Wait. you are far better motivated:roflmao3:

What is your motivation. Your soldiers are going to a far land thousands of miles away where they have totaly nothing to do with to invade it because their president wants more power. Israeli soldiers are fighting for the survival of their nation. Their nation is under threat of being destroyed and the US is not under that threat.

I don't like Israel but your comment was just stupid.

[Zraver]

Wait. you are far better motivated:roflmao3:

What is your motivation. Your soldiers are going to a far land thousands of miles away where they have totaly nothing to do with to invade it because their president wants more power. Israeli soldiers are fighting for the survival of their nation. Their nation is under threat of being destroyed and the US is not under that threat.

I don't like Israel but your comment was just stupid.

it's called espirit de corps, the USMC has it the IDF doesn't. The US soilder doesn't fight for the president he fights for America and his buddies. We didn;t have a stake in Europe in WW2 but our air crews flew where eagles dared to tread, and our GI's hit the beaches running and blasted thier way through stubborn suicidal defenders in the Hedgegrows, Aachen, Metz, and Colonge.

Quite simply the IDF thought it was elite comitted massive beginner blunders and got its head handed to them. The US knows it is elite and on the tatical level has not been beaten since Task Force Smith in 1950. The US invests huge amounts in leadership development and small unit training that combine with technology to produce a force you obviously don't understand. Find me a single place in Iraq where a US unit larger than a platoon has been forced to retreat by the "martyr's".

[Behrooz Boonabi]

Find me a single place in Iraq where a US unit larger than a platoon has been forced to retreat by the "martyr's".

It is this outlook that ensures a proper whipping (litteraly). Iran is SOooo much different than Iraq.

[Kermanshah1]

it's called espirit de corps, the USMC has it the IDF doesn't. The US soilder doesn't fight for the president he fights for America and his buddies. We didn;t have a stake in Europe in WW2 but our air crews flew where eagles dared to tread, and our GI's hit the beaches running and blasted thier way through stubborn suicidal defenders in the Hedgegrows, Aachen, Metz, and Colonge.

Quite simply the IDF thought it was elite comitted massive beginner blunders and got its head handed to them. The US knows it is elite and on the tatical level has not been beaten since Task Force Smith in 1950. The US invests huge amounts in leadership development and small unit training that combine with technology to produc