IRINS Tabarzin (P 232) Kaman (La Combattante II) class guided missile patrol boat (PGGF)
IRINS Neyzeh (P 231) Kaman (La Combattante II) class guided missile patrol boat (PGGF)
IRINS Sirjan (472) Delvar class replenishment ship, small (AEL)
IRINS Lavan (514) Hengam class tank landing ship (LSTH)
Another view of IRINS Lavan (514)
ZU-23-2 twin autocannon fitted to IRINS Lavan
Also refurbished: IRINA Agusta SH-3D Sea King (AS-61), reg: 8-2307
Another view of IRIN SR.N6 Tondar (Winchester) class hovercraft (07)
IRI Marines aboard Iranian-built ATVs
Photos: Azin Haghighi and Majid Jamshidi at FARS News Agency, Ahmad Jafari at MEHR News Agency, IRNA
Videos: IRINN
24 comments:
Look at this pos 1960s tech originally built by the west for the shah.
wonderful snapshots and proof that if Iran is attacked by Somali pirates, it'll be an even fight!
Actually, these "pos" as you put it, have been modified to launch guided missles and are very deadly. Much like my modified 1967 Ford Mustang that will leave all modern era sports cars in the dust! :p
Yeah !!!! since Somali pirates are renowned to be adept at using radar-guided C-802 and C-803 sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles, and have already killed 4 crew-members out of a "cutting-edge" Israeli frigate called the Hanit that almost sunk in 2006 with a single hit, and took several months to repair. Also, it is common fact that they are able to make custom copies of it at home based on indigenous requirements. Countless missiles plants in Somalia pirate camps, facts I tell ya !!!
Also proof that if you have nothing relevant or decent to contribute, you do not have say something just for the sake of it.
Will you survive a crash in your modified 1967 Ford Mustang (I have no doubt it must be very quick now) compared to a modern built sports car?
" .... modified to launch guided missles and are very deadly "
they're sitting ducks for aircraft and will not survive a single battle.
Before you build larger ones, you have to posses sufficient number of smaller ones and those Iranian smaller ones have been well armed and with high speeds.
They have to be dealt by enemies like larger warships, because they operate close to the coastline and will be supported by land based air defences as well as the air forces.
The practical benefits of the possession, of the numerous Kaman and Tondar class' warships guarantees proper control of Iranian coastline and creates real danger for enemy larger warships, on the waters of the Persian Gulf, because each of them carries four large and sophisticated missiles.........in addition to a cannon.
A-F
It should be re-named the IRINS Artifical Reef.
Hanit was hit on its unstealthy crane structure, and was nowhere close to being sunk. It's defenses were also not engaged. So yes, you could launch a first strike against unsuspecting western forces and get some good hits in. God help you after that.
anon 7:27
Actually yes! To both questions.
I have a roll cage built in, and am getting 572 hp at the rear wheel. And that is without the NOS modifier. So yes I guess it is faster than 99.9 percent of cars on the streets. I guess you missed the word modifed!?!
Anon 7:43
Yes you are correct...however the only airforce that is capable of taking out all of irans assets which would include these ships, is the u.s. airforce. And that is not happening sunce we friends now...so it doesnt matter. Irans defence is not meant to have first strike capability. Its meant as a deterence which has worked very well thus far, wouldn't you agree?
Now both of you stop wasting my time.
It was indeed close to be sunk, check your sources (other than Wikipedia of Israeli Army Radio), in fact it barely made it safely to port and had to be towed for very lenghty repairs after the conflict. The inactive defenses was the official pretext Israelis used to justify that hit. It was even questionned by members of their military themselves who pointed out that IFF systems both on operating IDF airplanes and other naval assets should have prevented any occurence of friendly fire (the motive behind the alleged extinction of their Phalanx and Barak systems) and the issue wasnt ever clarified even after the Winograd Report. And it was fired in a semi-unguided fashion by Hezbollah forces on shore who comandeered a civilian radar from Lebanese coast guard and used it to adjust their fire, by nature a non-optimum procedure. In the case of Iran, better and more efficient use of military grade 3D-Radars designed to be cpupled with the missiles, would have been performed instead. Plus, would the standoff occur in the Persian Gulf they will be able to count on dozens more such missiles ready to fire in batteries in vicinity, of which it has deployed hundreds spread all along the Gulf's shores. I concede, my example wasnt appropriate. Not as much as the Somali pirate parallel though.
The helicopter is an ASH-3D Sea King, a variant of the SH-3D licence built by Agusta.
Iran ans the US are not friends and aren't going to be friends.
Anon. Dec 2 11.45 PM
I hope your knowledge bout military equipment is better than cars. have you heard anything about "deformation zones" in car industry? A roll cage is not enough unless you are planning to flip the car.
If "modifying" military hard wear was enough then the Americans/ Europeans and Russians would still be flying their second world war air planes. Granted the Iranians have achieved a lot in reverse engineering and the West has to pay a heavy price if they decide to take Iran on, but if they feel that, that is their only option, they don't give a damn about heavy losses, public opinion in their countries / the cost of it.
Now stop answering if you feel it is a waste of your time.
it wasn't sunk, silly person. it was indeed damaged by a Chinese-manufactured missile and returned to port on its own power.
As anonmymous, December 3, 2013 at 6:06 AM said :
Four of its dead crew-members would probably strongly disagree with your assertion belittling the damage sustained there, you funny clown. It had to be towed and water dangerously entered parts of the ship by breaching the hull, it was barely kept afloat and ultimately had to be towed for months-long repairs. The only saving grace for them was the fact that the second missile fired missed the target, according to post-incident investigations made by Israelis themselves. Furthermore, it certainly wasn't fired under optimum conditions, and Hezbollah possessed only a couple at the time, nowhere near Iran's detection and guidance radar hardware, or arsenal size. I would personally add that it was never entirely determined whether it was actually a smaller C-704 that was fired (which would explain significantly superior chances for a ship of this size to survive the blow).
Anyway, they underestimated the enemy in every regard, consequently took a bad, unexpected and deadly hit, and made plenty of excuses afterwards to explain it to the world. Nonetheless this whole affair and its handling doesn't change the fact that Iranian-made weapons fired by a guerrilla group made clear to the Israelis that even in much inferior condition, their enemies can put a lot more of a fight that they would have imagined in any of their pretentiously projected war scenarios. That was enough to shatter the illusion of the IDF self-proclaimed invincibility towards Hezbollah fighters, and on a more global level explained the subsequent failure of their opportunistic attempt at re-invading parts of Lebanon going probably beyond the blue line. Now go on and face Iran now that it is almost guaranteed that uncle Sam will stay aside, and see what happens to your beloved navy, among other assets engaged.Indeed I think you wasted enough time saber rattling about the matter already, maybe it is time to walk the walk rather than to stick to the talk, and show us all how wrong we were in thinking that the IDF cannot eat Iran for breakfast.
PS : and I said "almost sunk" which technically means "not sunk, though somewhere close to it", now time to get back to english basics.
I kind of second that. Even though I think diplomatically, we're past the point where western intervention was still a credible option to be considered against Iran. They are rather busy gradually but steadily reintegrating Iran into the world economy one institution at a time (and attempting at pushing the juiciest possible deals while the country cannot still firmly stand on its feet again for some time), the current financial situation simply doesn't give them much of a choice in that regard anyway.
That explains why among other things, they had to accept a guaranteed enrichment right as a solid condition in the Geneva deal (and this, despite the harsh tone that the Americans displayed on the media front the days afterwards to appease most hard-line elements and notably good old AIPAC-dominated Congress), of course under intense scrutiny and additional control protocols, but still, such recognition in itself is without contest a major historical achievement and step forward for the Iranian nuclear industry and thus foreign policy in general, like it, hate it, or take it with a taste of bitter "satisfaction" like I do. Albeit at a VERY heavy cost for its population. Now one has to ask if all the trouble and isolation was worth that prize... but that's another subject altogether and this particular post is certainly not the place to discuss it.
My point is, short of a coalition and/or interstate complicity, none of the regional powers can succeed in a one-on-one confrontation with Iran, since the latter's offensive capacities are enough to cripple any potential, existing foe, including distant Israel and its limited projection capability, specially when devoid of american air tanker fleet and active logistical support in the event of a unilateral strike, assuming anyone still daring it in such unfavorable context, of course.
-A
PS : learn English basics yourself, like using a capital letter when writing the name English; before criticising others for it.
Oh, looks like somebody is pulling the big guns now !
Lesson of the day - Don't call people names, let alone on such an unfounded basis, and you won't get slapped in return and whine like a crybaby afterwards, like you just did.
As for your latest reply, in turn, Mr. Professor, though being as weak as it was pathetic, had nonetheless the merit of making me laugh at the end of a long day, and I will Thank you for that, with a capital "T" :-)
Now, how about getting back on topic now, assuming you have anything constructive to add to the discussion at all ? (other than insulting people, needless to say)
Regards,
Excuses for zionist embarrassment.
Precisely. Excuses for compensating an upset sentiment of unquestioned supremacy. Come to the Persian Gulf and this time its your entire navy that goes under. Funny we never see any Israeli frigate wander there for a show of superior force for instance via some random shooting of some fishing boats or the shelling of some beaches as they love doing it on Gazan shores for target practice every once in a while. Yeah just come and try it in the PG and see how it goes. Damn, silly me, you won't, because there are plenty of ways the enemy can fight back in those premises....
Thanks A
As always I enjoyed reading your post in response to my comment.
I hope you are right and the AIPAC influenced congress (The next , possibly Republican US president) and the hard liners in Iran (Elements of IRGC) do not sabotage a possible deal 6-12 months from now.
I still believe that there could be a big risk for crippling sanctions (to really weaken Iran) and a US military attack on Iran if there is no agreement.
Thank you in return for such attention.
Actually despite appearing as pretty convinced in my personal evaluation, I would certainly hope the White House stays its current course and IRI hard-line elements are kept on a leech as well... both sides are walking on a tightrope, still subject to various kinds of unexpected winds with the potential to derail and bury the whole thing altogether. indeed, despite all current signals, such outcomes cannot be entirely disqualified as of now. Hagel latest comments are testimony to that, even though I still believe it is just appeasement talk for Bibi and his friends in the US. Yet, so long as the accord retains its temporary nature, basically anything can happen, ranging from the worst to the best. So far so good though, the current tide globally adds reason to believe in a rational, pragmatic and optimistic evolution on the part of all involved. All principal actors seem to agree on a detente for now.
-A
Post a Comment