Iranian Fateh Class Submarines

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,970
Reaction score
60

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,234
Reaction score
78
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The previous Ghadir class midget sub had the same thing, variously described as a secondary propulsion system or an "outboard motor." I would guess that it's meant for quietly motoring about near the enemy, and it on the top because it might have to operate in shallow water.
 

Eagle2009

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
ALCON,


That image is NOT the Fateh-class submarine...that is just a Ghadir-class submarine. It is a stock image used in the article. The only public image of the Fateh-class submarine is a satellite image published by Jane's showing one moored at the Bostanu shipyard/port (West of Bandar Abbas).


Official Iranian statements put the Fateh-class submarines in the ~500 ton displacement range and the dimensions estimated by Jane's put the vessel in the same size class as the German Type 206 and Israeli Gal-class.


Here are some images of the Fateh-class concept (physical model and CGI):
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,970
Reaction score
60
Many thanks for putting me right, Eagle !
Should have noticed, as the length given on the Janes site, would turn those
crew members into giants. Well, it's just too easy to take such photos for granted ! :-\
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,249
Reaction score
24
Eagle2009 said:
ALCON,


That image is NOT the Fateh-class submarine...that is just a Ghadir-class submarine. It is a stock image used in the article. The only public image of the Fateh-class submarine is a satellite image published by Jane's showing one moored at the Bostanu shipyard/port (West of Bandar Abbas).


Official Iranian statements put the Fateh-class submarines in the ~500 ton displacement range and the dimensions estimated by Jane's put the vessel in the same size class as the German Type 206 and Israeli Gal-class.


Here are some images of the Fateh-class concept (physical model and CGI):
Very interesting.

And way more practical.

I've always been of the opinion that a submarine the size of the Type 206 would be exceedingly useful in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

The Persian Gulf for example has a maximum depth of only 90 meters.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
Slowly more images and materials are creeping out. Am able to estimate the main hull diameter as 4m vs the 6m initially reported. More info http://www.hisutton.com/Fateh-Class_Submarine.html






 

carvalho2008

Naval alternative projects
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
mini-submarines are still very dangerous for any marine...
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
Well it's tricky to categorize subs of the fateh's size. Not quite a midget, but hardly 'full size' either. Not sure if it's the best of both worlds or the worst of both.

Strategically, it does increase the potential for the Iranian navy to patrol the western side of the Persian gulf, at least for longer than is currently possible with the ghadir.

But this sub is I suspect operated by the navy not the IRGCN so it is likely intended for use in the Arabian Sea, where it is much less suited.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
256
Reaction score
1
Any latest information yet on surfaced displacement ? Im only got some old news here and dear wikipedia. which list 527 metric ton.

http://news.usni.org/2013/11/27/iran-launches-new-submarine-class

527metric ton, the battery may took around 20-25% of the displacement. Assuming 25% of battery it would be 131.75 metric ton.

Knowing the length and hull diameter, a reasonable calculations can be made to estimate underwater endurance. Based on Ulrich Gabler's submarine design book and Tom Stefanick's book, it yielded result of 5 days underwater endurance with speed of 3.5 knot. maximum underwater speed (in wiki) of 14 knot however can only be sustained for 14 hours.
 

Eagle2009

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
ALCON,

Here is the MashreghNews story that first quote those displacement figures (fraid it's in Farsi but even the generally useless Google Translate helps sort out the numbers).

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/239492/%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AD-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C

This was posted in August 2013 on the IMF, here are the figures from it:

Surfaced Displacement- 527 tons
Submerged Displacement- 593 tons
Operational Depth- 200-250 meters
Endurance- 35 days (hard to tell if they mean when surfaced or submerged, tho the former seems likely)

I'll sift through the old threads in the IMF and see if I can find any other news sources...
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
Seems about right.

The single hull construction shows that it is influenced by the Nahang lineage and local construction of the IS-120 more so than overhauling the KILOs.

I wonder if this will put to sea more frequently than the KILOs? They are very rarely at sea for more than a day or two I suspect which must limit crew proficiency.

There are signs that the Iranian built subs have suffered quality issues which may have resulted in leaks. But this boat is too large to be tested in the high pressure chamber used for the IS-120s. Hope it doesn't disappear from the spotlight like the Nahang did.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
Eagle2009, has there been any news of the Nahang in recent years?

Seems likely it's long since retired, or worse.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
256
Reaction score
1
Eagle2009 said:
ALCON,

Here is the MashreghNews story that first quote those displacement figures (fraid it's in Farsi but even the generally useless Google Translate helps sort out the numbers).

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/239492/%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AD-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C

This was posted in August 2013 on the IMF, here are the figures from it:

Surfaced Displacement- 527 tons
Submerged Displacement- 593 tons
Operational Depth- 200-250 meters
Endurance- 35 days (hard to tell if they mean when surfaced or submerged, tho the former seems likely)

I'll sift through the old threads in the IMF and see if I can find any other news sources...
Excellent find. Now i believe the number in wiki is likely based on the news.

Regarding the endurance though, 35 days submerged are reasonable with snorkeling period. The sub only need to raise its snorkel to start its diesel generator which will charge battery. after charging is done it can go fully submerged again for 4-5 days depending on its patrol speed.
 

stealthflanker

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
256
Reaction score
1
covert_shores said:
4 or 5 days might be a bit long for this sub?
well see my previous post.. that's quite achievable with underwater speed of only 3.1 knot.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Website
www.hisutton.com
I haven't read those books but I did receive some good info as part of my Sinpo Class analysis (http://www.hisutton.com/N%20Korean%20ballistic%20missile%20sub%20capability.html and http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Sinpo%20Class%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Sub.html). My suspicion is that the 1/4 weight of batteries rule does not scale down to a 500 ton boat as items like torpedo tubes, engines, motors etc don't scale as such.

The armament fraction on this boat (4 x TTs, 8 torpedoes as reasonable load, fire control etc) is about 32 tons.


Also these boats are operating in very high temperatures which will shorten battery life (?). See this quote from http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/discharging_at_high_and_low_temperatures
"All batteries achieve optimum service life if used at 20°C (68°F) or slightly below. If, for example, a battery operates at 30°C (86°F) instead of a more moderate lower room temperature, the cycle life is reduced by 20 percent. At 40°C (104°F), the loss jumps to a whopping 40 percent, and if charged and discharged at 45°C (113°F), the cycle life is only half of what can be expected if used at 20°C (68°F). " .
Temperatures in subs in the Persian Gulf get very hot. Maybe they need 131 tons of batteries just for the aircon? ;)
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
39
Unless a semi-submersible torpedo boat (or possibly some sort of Q-Ship) was used, it's likely that one of Iran's subs is on the rampage.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
980
Reaction score
12
Most actual analysis I've seen says limpets rather than torpedo attacks. The divers could well be working from a sub, but they could also be operating off any of several other types of vessel.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
11
Website
beyondthesprues.com
It may very well not be Iran either. What does Iran stand to gain by this?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
29
Indeed. It seems like the sort of op that any regional power (or even well-equipped non-state actor) opposed to Iran might pull to trigger a US response.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
710
Reaction score
7
What does Iran get from sponsoring all kinds of mayhem in other countries? It would not be the first time they got up to this sort of conduct. Of the others, North Korea would be the next most likely.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
39
Most actual analysis I've seen says limpets rather than torpedo attacks. The divers could well be working from a sub, but they could also be operating off any of several other types of vessel.
Looks like one of the tankers in the latest attack was indeed attacked with limpet mines:
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
29
So the video is very interesting. The vessel does seem to be a known IRGCN patrol boat type. Why they'd go retrieve a non-functioned limpet mine is a bit of a mystery, but I guess they might want to avoid leaving an exploitable device behind.

My hunch would be that this might be an op not directed by senior Iranian leadership. IRGC isn't always well controlled from the top.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
980
Reaction score
12
My hunch would be that this might be an op not directed by senior Iranian leadership. IRGC isn't always well controlled from the top.
Somewhat feels this way to me, specifically that IRGC and those they prefer to have in control were miffed about the optics of the Ayatollah meeting with Abe peacefully and wanted to make trouble to disrupt things.
 
Top