Iranian Navy | News and Discussions

[PakAl]

If you have blue-water submarines, you use them in blue waters. Otherwise, there's no point in acquiring submarines with those characteristics, and there's no point in building the Besat.
For the Persian Gulf, given the shallow waters, midget submarines, and at most the Fateh-class, are sufficient.
But the Besat class are in Iran's plans, so they intend to use them, along with the Kilo-class, in blue waters, which means they need surface vessels to support them.

Are the Kilo class being upgraded with the latest tech. If so they can serve well for 15odd years.

 

[PakAl]

The single best naval defense that Iran has is the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.....
Let me say it again for the strategist in Iran....... The single best naval defense that Iran has is the closure of Strait of Hormuz.
It doesn't matter that the United States does not buy oil from the Gulf. The oil market is international. If the price of oil in the Gulf goes up, the price goes up everywhere, even inside the United States.
If we were ever to get seriously targeted. Iranians must think about this option of Last Resort.
Also it wouldn't hurt for the UAE gas terminal to blow up during the conflict. Not to mention saudi arabia's massive oil field getting a few stray missiles, by mistake, of course.
Iran can effectively sink the global economy. The cost to go to war against Iran could easily top trillions of dollars........ This has been, and still remains our best defense against the western aggression.

Usa will within a few weeks destroy Iranian navy and control the strait of hormuz. I understand Iran can use SS missiles but Nato full pledged attack on Iranian land will deter Iran from doing this, unless ofcourse Iran is invaded beforehand.

 

[sahureka2]

Usa will within a few weeks destroy Iranian navy and control the strait of hormuz. I understand Iran can use SS missiles but Nato full pledged attack on Iranian land will deter Iran from doing this, unless ofcourse Iran is invaded beforehand.

Why NATO?
NATO was created as a defensive alliance in the event of one of its member countries being attacked; only then, and at the request of the attacked country, can it invoke Article 5, the cornerstone of its collective defense. This Article states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, obliging other members to provide assistance, potentially with armed force, to restore security. This Article was famously invoked once after 9/11. It is deliberately flexible, allowing members to choose their own response, from military action, to sanctions, but it does not automatically impose the deployment of troops, but only "action it deems necessary."
Therefore, it is not automatic that NATO countries go to war alongside the US—for example, if they attack Iran.

 

[kastor ville]

Usa will within a few weeks destroy Iranian navy and control the strait of hormuz. I understand Iran can use SS missiles but Nato full pledged attack on Iranian land will deter Iran from doing this, unless ofcourse Iran is invaded beforehand.

Fantasy....the same kind of thinking that has the entire Muslim world bending a knee to the West.......Except Iran....and times like these makes me proud to be an Iranian, even with all of the problems, we went from being a nation dependent on the US to a state that gives them pause.

 

[ToddE]

Iran is invaded beforehand.

Have you ever seen topographical map of Iran ?

 

[FUB]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BigMela2onin]

Have you ever seen topographical map of Iran ?

Afghanistan is one of the most mountainous contries on Earth and they invaded and occupied it for decades.

 

[Shags101]

Afghanistan is one of the most mountainous contries on Earth and they invaded and occupied it for decades.

They lost in the end soviets lost America lost back to Taliban rule.
Irans. Lot larger would take a million or more to even try to invade from every corner would take a lot more money and a lot more loss of life to win a fight temporarily yeah there may be people who are not happy about Iranian politics but doesn’t mean these same people want their country destroyed for Israel.
Unless America can get tge vast majority of the population behind them not winnable

 

[Kyussis]

Can we please get back on topic?

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

25,000 barrels of oil

Iran exports around 2 million barrels per day, so this seizure was 1% of one day's export

this suggests it was a local smuggling effort taking advantage of cheap prices in Iran to export to other countries

 

[ToddE]

Afghanistan is one of the most mountainous contries on Earth and they invaded and occupied it for decades.

You are mistaking invasion for occupation. Invasions of Afghanistan have been successful but their occupation has always been a failure. Occupier had to leave within few years with losses so large that some of the occupiers themselves got crippled (USSR).

And all this despite the inherent disadvantages. Afghanistan is not a nation state, it was Eastern Iran for its entire history since BC. Because of later Safavi and Afshar stupidity, it got separated otherwise it has same culture, genes as Iran. You leave them as they are and they will start a civil war with each other. Country has no sea port so its dependent upon every bordering country for trade. It never had any strong regular Armed Forces either. Even with all these faults, they still cant be occupied even by superpowers. Compare them to South Asia for example who despite having everything always got colonized.

 

[ToddE]

The Fateh is roughly the same class as the U-206 or Toti class, making it ideally suited to potentially conducting ambush missions in shallow waters such as the Persian Gulf, the sea areas facing the Strait of Hormuz, and capable of carrying out such missions in the Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea, where there are suitable locations for these submarines and where ships are virtually forced to pass. On the other hand, the three Kilo-class submarines, in terms of size, displacement, maximum diving capacity, submerged speed, silent submerged performance, and endurance, are effectively submarines with the ability to patrol and search and destroy enemy surface vessels and submarines, suitable for carrying out such missions in the oceans. Therefore, in order to increase their patrolling time in distant seas, naval units capable of supporting them are needed. I believe that, without publicity, the Iranian Navy has already prepared this service.

So what happens if enemy aircrafts decide to sink these low defended ships on support missions outside PG as you are describing ?

 

[sahureka2]

So what happens if enemy aircrafts decide to sink these low defended ships on support missions outside PG as you are describing ?

I think this is a pointless question. If someone decides to attack them and sinks them, it means we're at war, and in war, no ship is guaranteed to survive an air, naval, or submarine attack, or even an attack by dangerous means.
What is also certain is that these ships are derived from oil tankers, which, as is well known, have very resistant hulls and therefore high survivability, but nothing is unsinkable, so the risk persists.
But they still wear the colors and fly the flag of a military vessel, which, as is well known, would significantly change the situation if it were to fly a commercial flag. In peacetime, even the most unfriendly of all know they can't stop them, not even with "Maritime Police" patrols.
So if you want to patrol the blue waters for long periods and don't have friendly ports, you need your own naval support, and this is possible with those large, modified former oil tankers.
Of course, you can think differently, but I'm still convinced that if you have submarines for blue waters, it's always better not to get stuck keeping them in your backyard, which is more like a closed lake where, due to the shallow waters, it's difficult to even hide on the seabed. So, to avoid the risk of being bottled up in the Persian Gulf, logic leads one to believe that they should be used as far away as possible, or at least in times of crisis, at least one should be kept away from the Persian Gulf. This is why there's a need for support ships like the Makran or the Kordistan, but you could also use ships with commercial flags suitable for refueling and support, to be used only when necessary.

 

[ToddE]

I think this is a pointless question. If someone decides to attack them and sinks them, it means we're at war, and in war, no ship is guaranteed to survive an air, naval, or submarine attack, or even an attack by dangerous means.

In Persian Gulf the coastal IRGCASF (AShCM/AShCM), Coastal IADS and IRIAF combined still can implement AA/AD to cover for surface vessels. What defence will these surface ships have outside Persian Gulf ?

What is also certain is that these ships are derived from oil tankers, which, as is well known, have very resistant hulls and therefore high survivability, but nothing is unsinkable, so the risk persists.
But they still wear the colors and fly the flag of a military vessel, which, as is well known, would significantly change the situation if it were to fly a commercial flag. In peacetime, even the most unfriendly of all know they can't stop them, not even with "Maritime Police" patrols.
So if you want to patrol the blue waters for long periods and don't have friendly ports, you need your own naval support, and this is possible with those large, modified former oil tankers.
Of course, you can think differently, but I'm still convinced that if you have submarines for blue waters, it's always better not to get stuck keeping them in your backyard, which is more like a closed lake where, due to the shallow waters, it's difficult to even hide on the seabed. So, to avoid the risk of being bottled up in the Persian Gulf, logic leads one to believe that they should be used as far away as possible, or at least in times of crisis, at least one should be kept away from the Persian Gulf. This is why there's a need for support ships like the Makran or the Kordistan, but you could also use ships with commercial flags suitable for refueling and support, to be used only when necessary.

Iran does not have the capability or resources to carry out Blue water naval operations against foes we have (US, NATO, EU, Israel). They will sink Iranian ships right in the middle of the ocean, our enemies have that capability. Mowjs are not gonna survive even if we make 10 more to "supply" 3 Kilos we have. Only naval action Iran can afford is within Persian Gulf or on periphery of it because thats where IRGCASF, IRIAD, IRIAF can carry out a multi-domain consortium with IRIN/IRGCN. Outside it, our ships are sitting ducks.

 

[sahureka2]

In Persian Gulf the coastal IRGCASF (AShCM/AShCM), Coastal IADS and IRIAF combined still can implement AA/AD to cover for surface vessels. What defence will these surface ships have outside Persian Gulf ?



Iran does not have the capability or resources to carry out Blue water naval operations against foes we have (US, NATO, EU, Israel). They will sink Iranian ships right in the middle of the ocean, our enemies have that capability. Mowjs are not gonna survive even if we make 10 more to "supply" 3 Kilos we have. Only naval action Iran can afford is within Persian Gulf or on periphery of it because thats where IRGCASF, IRIAD, IRIAF can carry out a multi-domain consortium with IRIN/IRGCN. Outside it, our ships are sitting ducks.

I've read that you have only one line in military art, so it's pointless for me to continue proposing other paths.
Following your line, which indicates that everything is useless and will be destroyed by the powerful enemy, I propose providing IRAN only with lifeboats.
But unlike you, I think that if IRAN were to shut itself in a sea that is essentially a lake with a narrow passage to the open sea, all Iranian naval units in that lake would become an easily identifiable target for that powerful enemy, which would attack them without even allowing a single one of its ships to enter, but would do so in open waters or by attacking from land.
In such a situation, and since it has self-preserved itself in the gulf, IRAN would be unable to do anything to counter them, only to suffer inevitable destruction.
On the other hand, if you have ocean-going submarines like the Kilo class or similar ones operating in open waters, they can pose a major problem for attackers, because they will always have to operate with the risk of being torpedoed.
But you think differently, and reading your replies won't change your mind. So ours risks becoming an endless discussion that ultimately produces nothing new, only repetition.