Iran is going to launch their carrier in 2023
https://twitter.com/covertshores/status/1608799937671856130?s=46&t=De-suQX8mIT9GGxeA-Mm6w
What will they be flying from it?
Iranian aircraft carrier
Iran is going to launch their carrier in 2023
https://twitter.com/covertshores/status/1608799937671856130?s=46&t=De-suQX8mIT9GGxeA-Mm6w
What will they be flying from it?
Looks like a tanker with a flight deck lol
>diagonal landing
bold
It is a helicarrier. Has to be.
Mobile shaheed platform
could be. they have those heli-catamarans which were unveiled toward that start of the year.
That's actually kind of sex.
Damn that looks cool.
I don't see how it's going to be able to fly, anon.
it's a bulk freighter with a "flight deck"
On one hand it's disappointing that it's not a bespoke carrier.
On the other hand I admire the ingenuity and I've always been a sucker for converted carriers, and the whole "tanker turned carrier" reminds me of some of the WWII Merchant Carriers.
Based history enjoyed picking up what this thing is instead of just LeL DuMb IrAn'ing
oil-tanker converted Gadila class carriers with their Swordfish is something I can't help but love. Seeing Iran working on it does play into my bias, but I've never really cared for adding to the punching-down on Iran and I am endlessly fascinated by what they can achieve with how restricted they are from sanctions and the like.
its 2022. this is extreme poverty mode, iran is dumb.
Isn't it still kinda a dumb idea in modern times? Warships are designed to take a lot of punishment and still stay afloat. Merchant ships are designed around being cheap and having lots of room for cargo. A converted modern container ship would be really easy to sink.
>Warships are designed to take a lot of punishment and still stay afloat
Carriers today aren't intended to take much of a beating. That's basically the purpose of the carrier battle group, carriers are for deploying air assets away from land bases.
They are still going to have significantly better fire suppression systems, more sealed zones to isolate breaches, and better electrical overhead to support additional systems.
that is true, but in this case it's an acceptable compromise. Iran isn't in a position to fret over (quite a lot of) details that most other nation's navies can afford to address properly. Beggars can't be choosers.
And if these are intended for their UCAS rather than manned aircraft then the deficiencies don't matter as much. Less crew in danger and less money lost when the ship goes down because it was a cheap conversion of a civilian ship.
Thinking about it, since Iran and China are quite friendly, and the nonsense with Putin bending the knee to Xi, I would wonder if Iran might be doing this as a interim project while China figures out it's carrier projects for the wild hypothesis of them buying one since they might not posses that technical skills to do it themselves.
>Carriers today aren't intended to take much of a beating.
They still had to scuttle the USS America because none of the weapons they were using actually sunk her.
It's crazy to think the United States continued to operate diesel powered fleet carriers until 2009
Literally half a century of continuous work, for the largest and best funded navy in human history, to build an all nuclear carrier force. The fricking scope of it
And even the USN decided it couldn't afford to maintain any nuclear-powered surface combatants besides carriers.
Picrel is from the time the US Navy formed an all-nuclear task force (consisting of an aircraft carrier, a cruiser, and a destroyer) just to flex on the Soviets.
It's more so to do with everyone else not wanting nuclear powered ships in their ports severely restricting where we can dock, otherwise you'd probably see a massive uptick in nuclear cruisers
Why don't they want nuclear ships in their ports? It's better than the sulphur-spewing bunker burners
Because radiophobia is a disease that has metastasized in humanity ever since the Soviets had a minor oopsie with Reactor No. 4.
Because a diesel-powered ship sinking in harbour or suffering engine problems at port is a temporary nuisance and only really dangerous to everyone else if mixed in with external factors such as rough seas or if someone crashes into the recently submerged ship before a warning can go out.
If a nuclear-powered ship sinks in the harbour, or the engine suffers damage at port, you now have a nuclear reactor going into meltdown and irradiating everything around it, or it just gets swamped by sea water and blows the frick up in port, damaging the harbour and everything else docked there; plus the radiation as well.
This is why you don't have nuclear-powered civilian vessels with the exceptions of Arctic ice-breakers, because when they go wrong, they have the potential of fricking over entire countries by knocking out their major trade depots.
This would be a valid argument if it had ever happened.
Most of that isn't true. Nuclear reactors in vessels are much smaller than power plant reactors, usually in the 100 megawatt range, and sea water is an excellent moderator and won't cause the reactor to blow up, it will scram it. Merchant vessels don't use nuclear because of the vast cost building and manning them with a team of nuclear techs, not because they're dangerous. Merchant vessels mostly run on bunker fuel, nasty stuff that will cause much more ecological damage when they sink in a harbor (and they do) than a nuclear vessel. Not to mention that nuclear vessels are usually military and armored. Not rusting away with some drunk Slav or Chink in charge like most commercial ships these days
There would be costs involved in removing a nuclear wreck but a non nuclear wreck in a harbor is already a monstrous insurance claim that fricks up shipping for that port for months or years.
>things that have never happened, nor are likely to, but imagine if they did.
The basis for all anti-nuclear arguments.
Even after America had been gutted and internal barriers pierced that's amazing.
If your carrier is under direct attack at all you've probably already lost.
Yeah its like putting an ironclad battleship up against a interwar heavy cruiser. Maybe it'll get lucky but even if the goal is just to extend drone or air force operating ranges, it wouldn't last long in a naval battle with the west.
>it wouldn't last long in a naval battle with the west.
What could?
Maybe a Chinese fleet might be able to eek put a strategic withdrawal with some of their ships mostly intact.
That’s asking a lot…. The US navy hasn’t had to fight anything that even looks like a peer adversary since ww2…. Give them a chance at something looking like a real target and they’re gonna go for the flawless victory just on principle…
>Merchant ships are designed around being cheap and having lots of room for cargo.
There are a lot of these ships going around the world all the time and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don't want anyone thinking that tankers aren't safe.
Not saying they're not safe but they were not designed with the possibility of a anti-ship missile hitting them in mind.
But Senator Collins if that's true why did the front fall off?
Tankers are very seldom targeted by guided munitions, torpedoes, or anti-shipping missiles.
American aircraft carriers aren't supposed to "take a beating". They're assigned 2-3 Arleigh Burkes and a pair of Virginia submarines for escort for a reason.
All American warships are designed to survive direct fire. They're well-designed for it too - this isn't speculation, but proven. Though I absolutely agree with your that if your carrier is getting shot at as an American then someone fricked up.
has a point insofar as this is basically a tinfoil can with a helicopter deck on top, and nothing like the robustness or damage control capacity of an actual warship. Add to that that the ragheads honestly don't have a very impressive maritime tradition.
tbh if I was Ukraine, I'd consider sinking this thing when the war's over and it's actually put out to sea. Some of those drone torpedoes could do it. It'd humiliate the ragheads and kill a bunch of them, so it'd be funny.
Holy shit. You're such a fricking moron.
Not an argument.
Not really. Some LHD were derived from ferry design
When your crew are expendable that matters not. Iran wants a way to project power into the Med to support Damascus and a ghetto CBG would make intercepting their weapons deliveries problematic.
Holy frick, how something this based could even have existed?
The OG American carrier (the Langley) was so old that it started life as a Proteus-class collier (i.e. coal-refueling ship).
Incidentally, the other three ships in the class (the USS Proteus, USS Nereus, and USS Cyclops) were all sunk during the World Wars (in Nov. 1941, Dec. 1941, and Mar. 1918 respectively) while in the area known as the Bermuda Triangle. The cause of their disappearances has never been determined, no German U-boat claimed to have sunk any ships during those periods, and their wrecks have yet to be discovered. Spooky, amirite?
Forgot the picrel.
Basically the coal was actually quite acidic and due to the half full natural of their holds the coal mass was allowed to move around. These forces led to both ships snapping in half and then sinking
I prefer the theory that the Cyclops' disappearance was due to its captain being a German agent, as it features rumored executions of crewmen and such enticingly dramatic details as a classified State Department telegram that ends with, "I fear fate worse than sinking---"
>Near the time the search for Cyclops was called off, a telegram was received by the State Department from Charles Ludlow Livingston, the U.S. consul on Barbados:
>Secretary of State
>Washington, D.C.
>Department's Confidential.
>Master CYCLOPS stated that required six hundred tons coal having sufficient on board to reach Bermuda. Engines very poor condition. Not sufficient funds and therefore requested payment by me. Unusually reticent. I have ascertained he took here ton fresh meat, ton flour, thousand pounds vegetables, paying therefore 775 dollars. From different sources gather the following: he had plenty of coal, alleged inferior, took coal to mix, probably had more than fifteen hundred tons.
>Master alluded to by others as damned Dutchman, apparently disliked by other officers.
>Rumored disturbances en route hither, men confined and one executed; also had some prisoners from the fleet in Brazilian waters, one life sentence.
>United States Consul-General Gottschalk passenger, 231 crew exclusive of officers and passengers. Have names of crew but not of all the officers and passengers.
>Many Germanic names appear.
>Number telegraphic or wireless messages addressed to master or in care of ship were delivered at this port. All telegrams for Barbados on file head office St. Thomas. I have to suggest scrutiny there.
>While not having any definite grounds I fear fate worse than sinking though possibly based on instinctive dislike felt towards master.
>LIVINGSTON, CONSUL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cyclops_(AC-4)#The_captain
I imagine being a top-heavy brick sailing through one of the most tumultuous seas on Earth had something to do with it.
Those things look like they were designed to be coastal vessels and not ocean going ones.
Basically the origin of the first carriers. This is just 100 years later.
>Iran building 1920s aircraft carriers
>China building 1950s aircraft carriers
Who the frick is actually trying, France?
Brazil is making an aircraft carrier, idk what the frick they need one for though
To replace their old one. Dont ask why they needed it though.
It has to be a psychological prestige thing, you aren't a Serious Country unless you have an aircraft carrier. The Special K in Russia comes to mind, but keep in mind that even fricking Britain very nearly became nocarriers in the 2000s
The Brazilian flagship right now is a fairly sizable and modern helicopter carrier. I know the hues can't be trusted with F-35Bs but it's a shame there's no working Harriers left in the world they can outfit it with.
VTOL super tucano when ?
I smile to myself every time I remember that Turkey has two perfectly good carriers and no planes to operate on them because we cucked them out of the F-35s
What the frick does turkey need two carriers for? Whole point of the country is that it's geographically perfectly located as an air base.
Nvm quick lookup says they dont have any.
helicopter carriers.
But no F35.
They are in conflict with greece, so they need a lot of navy. And there’s the problem of Cyprus. Also, their whole shtick is about controlling sea accesses (Bosporus, Dardanelles). And on top of that, Turkey recently tries to challenge Saudi Arabia’s dominance of the muslim world in the mediterranean coasts (notably in Libya).
Therefor, turkish navy and interests in aircraft carriers.
The Andalou and the Trakya were both designed to operate F-35Bs (they're 760 feet long ffs) but Turkey got cucked and chucked at the last minute so now they're Cope Carriers
Turkey even resolved that they're going to make their own carrier-capable jets lmao
>Turkey even resolved that they're going to make their own carrier-capable jets lmao
Are they actually gonna do it, or is it vaporware?
Is that Hurjet or Durjet?
Turkey wants to export arms so military development is a smart play. Germany likewise is militarily useless (and weaker than Turkey) but sells plenty overseas.
Buying from any EU nation or the US comes with a policy leash. Turkey has enormous potential to sell to customers who are not ruled by Brussels.
for operations in the eastern med and black sea
They're not actual carrier. They're LHD
Also Turkey bought land-based F-35A
Same shit as the battleships of old. It's like how half of South America damn near bankrupted themselves trying to maintain battleships because they proved that they were Real Countries.
To be fair, helicopter carriers are just useful ships in general, capable of everything from anti-submarine warfare to disaster relief. They also have the advantage of being able to serve as a flagship since they're large enough to accommodate an admiral and his staff (which a frigate might have trouble doing).
No we arent, though the Navy do want It, enough that they keep the Navy's jets operational to "maintain doctrine".
What the Navy is focused now is on building the Nuclear Submarine.
Having an aircraft carrier makes you useful to countries that actually need aircraft carriers in case you ever need to cozy up to them and suck their dicks for some reason. Lets you do combined ops and friendly nation cross-training.
Brazil does, in theory, have the potential to be a genuine power in the world in things behind absolutely based police executions of shitskin criminals and hot troony hookers, and if they do have long-term ambitions of global power, they'll want some notion of how to use a carrier.
Basically. What are the Italians up to?
Aren't Italians building a lot of very smol drone/heli carriers for fricking around in the med?
the trieste class LHD is comparable in size to an american wasp class LHD, can launch F35s, hovercrafts, etc, so not exactly small.
Japan, and England.
I don't count the USA because we still have carrier from the 80's and our new carriers have too many problems to the point the become drydock queens.
can any navy gays ascertain whether those interior pylons are elevators? the 2 or 3 blocky things on the starboard side
You don't put elevators in the middle the flight line. I'm sure it'll have at least one, but it should be on the edge.
they might be aiming to keep them on the deck, as they do with their other current drone carrier
How to do they aim those?
Do they just have a bunch of dudes manually turning them around and arguing about when it's best to fire?
Since their drones are designed to attack a fixed, pre-programmed point after launch, I can't see this being much use beyond shore bombardment.
is it supposed to tilt like that
guessing it's a helicopter/drone carrier
I guess when you launch your drones from containers, a container ship can very easily become a mother ship.
and with loitering munitions its back to just being a missile cruiser, fricks sake
A converted carrier is still a carrier. This is probably for helicopters and drones, don't think Iran has any naval capable jets or VTOL ones
>don't think Iran has any naval capable jets
Iran is the last country on earth on the HIGHWAY TO THE DANGER ZONE
But Tom Cruise said their F-14's don't have carrier shit anymore. Also, could an F-14 even launch and land from that short of a flight deck? Iranians are great with drones, so I think it might be for that
I imagine they'll make some conversion kits so that they can do vertical take-off like some monstrous Natter from the darkest nightmares of a Top Gun fan.
A container ship would be ideal for VLS cells sized for existing container guides and with added bulkheads to mount containers vertically one-deep. All it would take to load them vertically would be a simple container crane adapter to pick the end set of corner fittings.
Container truck arrives. Container crane uprights the VLS container via the end adapter (simple welding and fab to build) previously placed by fork lift then locked onto the end fittings.
Container crane fills ship one-deep but because VLStainers don't need TEL equipment, just different end doors and side access hatches ships will be able to carry at least thrice the missiles and do it at deck height with room to access the cells from beneath.
Containers could be stacked vertically within the ship and lifted mechanically (heavy roller chains more than sufficiently strong are easy to work with) while jib cranes could toss expended containers over the side without pollution issues. Launching from one end while clearing the other would be pretty basic. Empty VLStainers would only weigh say 15000 lbs max so handling would be easy.
The ship could have an integral straddle crane (just a wider version of the shore-based style) with a counterbalanced rotating gantry beneath to pick empty (or full) containers then rotate the gantry over the side to dump empties.
That'd work great, provided no one shoots back.
Longshoregay here
That looks like an old container ship with the hatch covers removed
It obviously is one since there is zero reason to prefer that internal layout for a carrier. It will make fine artificial reef because poor damage control.
Shasneeds
OOOOOH YEEEEEEEEAAAH !!!!
>F14's will return to carrier duty.
>with the Iranian Navy.
What time traveller went back and fricked his own grandmother to get us into this timeline.
…
I didn’t think about that.
I might just convert to Iranian Islam
Don't get too excited. The Iranian F-14s are barely airworthy any more, and the only place they'll go launching off of a dicklet cargo ship is the bottom of the ocean.
sh.. SHUT UP! YOU!
I believe!
stooooop my dick can only get so hard
stovl variant
To be honest, I can't help but think that this mock-plane is more efficient and lethal than anything used by the Russian Air Force at the moment
No, it isn't. Iran risked even more sanctions and damage to IR just to get russian planes. Their airforce is abysmal.
Sneed
Given that the Iranians have zero need to fly beyond the range of their own airbases, I'm guessing they're building this for Russia as a Kuznetsov replacement.
Please let this silly idea be true. Imagine the absolute humiliation of having to outsource CARRIER PRODUCTION to a guy who durks to his moon god like 6 times a day and wipes his ass with his bare hand.
homies are laughing but the idea of a dedicated UCLASS carrier is not new and the iranians seem to be having a go at it, as silly as it might turn out.
they probably pose no real threat to the USN but it would be a good weapon against regional opponents of Iran, such as Saudi Arabia. it would allow them to strike them from locations they normally wouldn't expect.
Yeah it's really an underdeveloped idea considering how obvious it is.
Somebody needs to develop a sub 10,000 ton flat top that can launch predator sized drones (IE like the new 'STOL' predator), you could in theory equip those drones with ASW or flank arrays for a sort of swarm AEW and get really impressive capability for low cost.
I think perhaps that Turkey has already done it
Forgot pic
saudia arabia is russia tier or worse so a carrier conversion drone base from a freighter could actually ruin them
Probably a drone carrier.
America has to deal that it no longer has a monopoly on top class military equipment. Iran, China, Russia, DPRK, Brazil, Pakistan and India are now as good as America and even better. Pax Americana has come to an end. Soon enough Russia will have the Ukraine, China will return the Taiwan, Seoul will be reunited pith Pyongyang and Iran and Syria will destroy the terrorist state of Israel.
what happens next
Next the world will be free from nazism, judaism, zionism and satanism, and the West will pay for all damage it caused.
and then what
goat fricking
celebrational anal rape
the left really can't meme. what a bunch of miserable and delusional homosexuals
Let's just have the last one as a compromise
Least delusional tankie.
Impressive.
With this most recent achievement, fate has, in a single stroke, marked the decline of the west and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Chinese dragon, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of western powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. The blessings of Chinese plasma stealth technology, undetectable hypersonic combat vehicles, quantum direct-current electricity, neutrino submarine detectors, gamma titanium mono crystal turbines, quantum aircraft carriers, unmanned autonomous A.I. tanks, near-space ballistic air-to-air missiles, super light tanks, +2km range airburst rifles, quantum enhanced railguns, 5G Remote Surgery, magnetized plasma cannons, and quantum superalloy drones will be the instruments with which China affirms its noble stewardship of 21st century world politics and offers the non-western world a different option; an humanist alternative to the depredations of Western leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified multilateralism.
You are brown. Your so-called Ba'athist Iraq got crushed by the much more superior American Bvll
>Iranian naval capabilities arr maturing
Eyebrow raised?
Oh no!
Anyway.
when will argentina get an aircraft carrier to btfo the bongs?
The Falklands War was actually the only war between carrier powers since WW2, but the Argie carrier just sort of stayed in port the whole war for some reason instead of destroying the imperialist colonizers
>for some reason
yeah
>for some reason
Perhaps we should ask the southern force why, direct a question to the bridge of the Belgrano possibly. They may have some insight
They took it out but couldn't launch in the calm.
They just cut the entire budget for the air force to procure platforms more modern than fricking A-4's.
They will sell it to the Russian Navy.
netherlands confirmed for next navy superpower
>Iran
>carrier
But.. Why?
I don't even really understand why China is building carriers..
They're not viable without massive armada of logistics and defensive vessels..
Their location will be tracked 24/7 from orbit and have an attack sub tailing them at all times..
it will cost the burgers thirty satellite-minutes and a small room of glowies in order to track it for decades and that's the biggest victory they can ever hope to achieve
30 satellite-minutes a day that is
>a small room of glowies
I think you mean an image recognition AI running on an iphone...
Jokes on you, we already budgeted and taxed for the capabilities.. we’d have the satellite hours and be paying the manpower regardless of if we had something real to track.. military industrial complex must be maintained.. this just means the in duty teams get to work with real data instead of constant training exercises…
2 iranian ships sailed past my house, any idea wtf they are doing here?
pic related. There was 44I on it, and an escort too, but i couldn’t read its number.
WTF is that?
Poor man's carrier or desperate people will come up with an alternative.
Probably lost and wondering why they’re going by your house…
Sounds pretty fricking stupid. Why would Iran need power projection capabilities provided by a carrier? All the states operating carriers have some reason to project power, but Iran does not. It has no overseas assets to protect and has no claims on any overseas territory, nor does it have any foreign policy goals overseas that could be furthered by having a carrier. In any realistic conflict it would be either sunk or sitting in port (and get sunk at anchor, most likely). They have no naval tradition, they have no carrier-based aircraft unless they plan to use their ancient Tomcats for it.
It'll be a drone launcher.
But why do they need a drone launcher?
I don't really get it either. They could be sending it to be a platform off Yemen I suppose, daring the Saudis to up the stakes by striking at it.
SMOOOKERS!
DEAD OUT OF THE SUN!
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/54d3efcf-37f7-49c5-825f-c1b73e8cdded
what war could Iran get into where that aircraft carrier isn't insta-sunk by the US or Isael?
None, It's fricking useless. I don't understand 3rd world countries wasting money on stupid shit like aircraft carriers. If you're not the US or France/UK its gonna get sunk immediately in any real war.
it's prestige. countries with aircraft carriers are automatically more prestigious then countries without them.
it's weird how h i sutton is the kind of autist that only talks about non-nato equipment