"Iranian Navy on the move" Topic

Iran launches destroyer Dena and minesweeper Shahin

link

Iranian navy destroyer and sea based deployed for the first time in Atlantic Ocean

link

Home-made Mowj-Class frigate Dena officially joined the Iranian Navy

link

Armand

Top article refers the ship as a destroyer, it definitely not a DD. It is a nicely equipped light/patrol frigate and meets the needs of the NEDAJA.

I would not like to be on this class of ship transiting the Atlantic Ocean.

Well at least they are not plywood or fiberglass speedboats. Of course those would not be able to cross the Atlantic. At least not for long.

For us non Navy types, can you enlighten us on the difference between a frigate and destroyer? Is it mainly a matter of size?

The distinctions are really blurry these days. For modern warships there are hierarchies based upon size, and hierarchies based upon capabilities. The three major mission areas are AAW (anti-air warfare), ASW (anti-submarine), and ASuW (anti-surface, meaning anti-ship). NGFS (naval gunfire support) is viewed as a secondary capability. The paradigm during the cold war was a ship with one major capability was a frigate, two was a destroyer, and three a cruiser. This was a very loose system and there are many examples which could be viewed as exceptions.

Size was also used as a classification. From big to small:

Cruiser
Destroyer
Frigate
Corvette
Patrol Vessel

Again, many exceptions. Many Soviet types were classified as cruisers to pump up the perceived threat, while many U.S. types grew in size. There is not a lot of difference in displacement or general capability between the Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers in the USN today.

The Iranian ship pictured above would be classified as a corvette or light frigate in most navies.

So the Iranian Navy consists of two ships?

Thanks!

Armand

Cruiser
Destroyer
Frigate
Corvette
Patrol Vessel

Thanks Sailor !

That is the way I understood it … and I was just a Grunt … 😁

So the Iranian Navy consists of two ships?

I hope more than that … The USN & USAF would like more targets to service I'm sure !

The Iranian navy has roughly two dozen ships and several smaller vessels, the Mowj class being the largest. The Mowj class are reverse-engineered copies of the Vosper Mark V design with different weapons and sensors.

USAFpilot, a DD has 4 main engines and is multi-capable platform. A frigate has 2 main engines and usually is less capable. Usually having a 2-3 main capability and some limited secondary ones.

A break down of primary capabilities: AAW (anti-air warfare), ASUW (anti-surface warfare and ASW (anti-submarine warfare), EW (electronic warfare).

Other capabilities: Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS either with guns and or missiles), Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), Mine Warfare (MW) and some others.

Iranian ships are at best light frigates and can also be called corvettes. Too small for a destroyer or even a full fledged frigate.

They are based on 1970s British designs with no much more modern Chinese systems (Iran doesn't even buy top of the line Chinese gear – most defence funds go to Revolutionary Guards).

Good intel Inch High +1

most defence funds go to Revolutionary Guards

Yes that should be no surprise. They are generally known to be very "dedicated", some say even fanatical. If need be I'd think they'd be the theocracy's "Pretorian Guard". Insuring their place in Heaven/Paradise/etc. I am told.

They should be the one of the first pieces "removed" from the board. If need be …

But that is almost a mute point … someone is going to let Iran get nukes … 🚀🚀🚀🚀 I'm pretty sure that is a bad idea … yes ?

Thanks!

Armand

someone is going to let Iran get nukes … 🚀🚀🚀🚀 I'm pretty sure that is a bad idea … yes ?

Except for all its bluster, Iran isn't stupid. Point of nukes is deterrence.* The great lesson dictators picked up from all the silly little US wars is that you need nukes to guarantee the future of your regime.

Nukes have ensured North Korea cannot be attacked. The only real threat to North Korea is internal.

I suspect Iran is trying the same thing.

Note Iran has a massive conventional imbalance against its neighbours. And I know you love KSA and UAE and think they're super swell freedom loving types and great American allies, but truth is they're also waging/sponsoring multiple wars directed against Iranian interests and their number 1 primary goal is to wipe out the Shias (like the Houthis).

Let's not forget Al Qaeda were allowed to operate in Yemen against Houthis and every Arab country and their dog plus Turkey helped create ISIS and other groups to eradicate non-Sunnis in Syria until they lost control and the war spread to the US led house of cards that is Iraq.

*Apparently the only countries where nuclear weapons weren't viewed as deterrence but rather as gigantic artillery are India and Pakistan! Experts estimate that this is the most likely area where a nuclear exchange will happen. The Norks and Iran are actually far more sophisticated in their understanding of implications of nuclear weapons.

Understand all that … But I still don't like them getting nukes … Call me old school …

So sue me … 😎

But I still don't like them getting nukes

I agree though in that case the west needs to pull away from lucrative arms sales to equally nasty Sunni regimes which undermine conventional balance in the region.

Note this was a thing in the past – the British and Americans both limited arms sales to unstable regions in the past including Middle East as well as Africa, SE Asia and Latin America.

Thus not everyone could buy an F-4 Phantom even if they had hard cash and would instead be authorised to buy F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger IIs or A-37 Dragonflies or nothing at all! UK used to do the same. Only the French violated the spirit of this albeit their weapons were too expensive and often not as capable as American ones (eg AMX-30 was no where near close to a Leopard or M60).

So stop selling offensive weapons to KSA or UAE and allow Iranian conventional inferiority to catch up slightly.

Yes … as we know does a lot of the talking worldwide …

And again a fundamentalist theocracy[or Kingdom !] should not have nukes. I just don't have much trust for who think the way some of those nations do. When it comes to Nuke Wpns/War … Or some other things for that matter …

By the time we realize it with Nukes it will be too late already …

I'm a bit of a realist on this type topic.

And again a fundamentalist theocracy[or Kingdom !] should not have nukes. I just don't have much trust for who think the way some of those nations do. When it comes to Nuke Wpns/War … Or some other things for that matter …

You realise fundamentalist states already possess nukes – Pakistan and by extension Saudi Arabia (via Pakistan).

America did nothing to stop Pakistan developing nukes save some weapon sanctions which were overridden as soon as 9-11 occurred.

Saudis apparently mount their's on Chinese ballistic missiles too – great American ally KSA is.

I'm a bit of a realist on this type topic.

Actually I think you're coloured with typical Americanisms.

The realist approach is Iran wants nukes to survive, not to engage in mutually assured destruction with Israel or USA or even KSA.

You realise fundamentalist states already possess nukes – Pakistan and by extension Saudi Arabia (via Pakistan).

I know that. Many of the Paks are very fundamentalists. And they will sell/give the KSA nukes in response to Iran getting deployable Nukes. The Paks are not our friends, nor are many in the KSA's population.

Do you really think the USA at this point could stop Iran or KSA from getting nukes ?

great American ally KSA is.

The USA has few "great" allies at this point. But things may change after the G7. But I think some of these allies come with open hands … in one way or another …

Actually I think you're coloured with typical Americanisms.

You don't know too many Americas living in the USA do you ? They couldn't find most of the places on a map and could care less. And don't get me started on the Gov't.

The realist approach is Iran wants nukes to survive, not to engage in mutually assured destruction with Israel or USA or even KSA.

Again … you trust Iran especially with their newly "elected" leader,[The butcher of something]? Of course only their religious leader the Iatollah, at the top could give the go for the use of nukes.
You trust him ?

That is realistic not trusting any of them … IMO … when it comes to nukes.

Again … you trust Iran especially with their newly "elected" leader,[The butcher of something]? Of course only their religious leader the Iatollah, at the top could give the go for the use of nukes.
You trust him ?

No, I don't trust him.

I assume he doesn't want to die pointlessly in a nuclear conflagration. That's rational.

Iran's Underwater Advantage is Staggering

link

Armand

I assume he doesn't want to die pointlessly in a nuclear conflagration.

Chances are since he is a higher up. He may not die … He'll be dug in deep, etc. ?

That's rational.

Hmmm … I always have a hard time using the word "rational" when it comes to fundamentalist radical islamists/terrorists.

Hmmm … I always have a hard time using the word "rational" when it comes to fundamentalist radical islamists/terrorists.

The leaders are extremely rational. That Iran has survived 42 years under its current regime (including surviving an Iraqi invasion and 8 year war, and 40+ years of American sanctions) is proof that it's leadership is rationale.

Their low level cannon fodder is not rational.

To be honest low level westerners aren't rational either – why the hell are they willing to go die or lose limbs in Afghanistan or Iraq for a cause even their government didn't know how to articulate in the end?

Indeed most westerners don't want to join the military for these reasons – that is rationale behaviour.

Chances are since he is a higher up. He may not die … He'll be dug in deep, etc. ?

If that's how you think, then you are more irrational than him.

Like any powerful ambitious people the Iranian leadership want to survive, thrive and increase power. Living in a bunker in a nuclear wasteland isn't part of that equation.

if that's how you think, then you are more irrational than him.

Well if you think so … then don't be surprised at any of my answers … Just write me off as an irrational old American warmonger nut job. 😆🤩

But I ain't going to change my opinion about Iran's leadership or the IRGC … Don't trust either of them !

Indeed most westerners don't want to join the military for these reasons – that is rationale behaviour.

Again you don't understand what most young or even some older Americans think about that topic. Most young Americans joining the military never crosses their mind. It just isn't even in their thought process. And again in the USA 70%+ of the military age population can't pass any of the basic entry requirements. So it works out for most of them …