sahureka2
Registered Member
Of course I defended them, but in another context of the discussion.
While our last exchange focused solely on ocean-going submarines and where they should be used, plus the ships that should support them in blue waters far from the Iranian coast and away from the risk of being bottled up in the Persian Gulf, where these ocean-going submarines are practically useless.
I also noted that to use submarines far from the homeland and for long periods, without always having friendly countries to refuel, it is inevitable to use ships that can support such submarines. In this context, I argued for the usefulness of converted tankers like the Makran and Kordestan, or the use of commercial ships that, under particular conditions and away from prying eyes, can refuel the submarines.
Therefore, in this case, I had made no statement regarding the usefulness or uselessness of the Mowj class.
While I confirm that the Mowj class (perhaps it's better to describe a series of single-class vessels that use part of the same hull), which in any case started almost from scratch, have provided experience in building with what the domestic industry could provide at the time.
Therefore, I consider them "experience" ships that have evolved according to both the evolution of the domestic industry, the positive and negative experiences (accidents and sinkings) during operational use, and also how and where to position weapons systems. These experiences certainly provide important input into how to build the next generation of larger-displacement combat ships.
In any case, these different "Mowj" ships have also provided great experience to their crews. Furthermore, the two missions of the ships Sahand and Dena, which escorted the Makran—the former to St. Petersburg and the latter circumnavigating the globe—confirmed the quality of the construction of the hulls, engines, and onboard systems.
