WesWorld

For a period, Persia had more or less stopped making naval policy and acquisition decisions for itself - Bharat was calling the shots. With the change in government in both nations in 1941, Persia's senior officers have been quick to re-assert Persian interests as the driving force for naval construction and acquisitions.

One of the first steps was to cancel the purchase of seven G-135 class destroyers from Bharat. The ships were old, small, and under-armed compared to modern boats; worse, Persia had the capacity to build its own destroyers. This didn't come in time to prevent the transfer of the first two G-135s, but it does mean that they'll be the first to be replaced by the new Ayask class.

This class is intended to be a multi-purpose ship, with adequate speed, armament, and range. Considerable miscellaneous weight has been set aside for future sensor growth, as well as troop or mine-carrying capacity.

Persia has penciled in plans for four boats, built at a rate of one per year; the third and fourth boats may have newer engines and slightly different stats - check back in 1944 to see.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1942

Displacement:
1,782 t light; 1,885 t standard; 2,144 t normal; 2,352 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
385.32 ft / 377.30 ft x 36.09 ft x 13.12 ft (normal load)
117.45 m / 115.00 m x 11.00 m x 4.00 m

Armament:
6 - 5.12" / 130 mm guns (3x2 guns), 67.03lbs / 30.41kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
8 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 420 lbs / 190 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 44,000 shp / 32,824 Kw = 34.55 kts
Range 6,000nm at 15.00 kts (Bunkerage = 467 tons)

Complement:
156 - 204

Cost:
£1.544 million / $6.176 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 52 tons, 2.4 %
Armour: 14 tons, 0.7 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 14 tons, 0.7 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 973 tons, 45.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 603 tons, 28.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 362 tons, 16.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 140 tons, 6.5 %
-95 t: Weight reserve
-20 t: Minelaying gear for 60 mines (gear only - mines separate)
-10 t: Sonar
-15 t: DC and DC Throwers

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
555 lbs / 252 Kg = 8.3 x 5.1 " / 130 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.18
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.4 m
Roll period: 12.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.55
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.80

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.45 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 22.32 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 67 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 62
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 17.72 ft / 5.40 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m (13.78 ft / 4.20 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 13.78 ft / 4.20 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.78 ft / 4.20 m
- Stern: 13.78 ft / 4.20 m
- Average freeboard: 14.33 ft / 4.37 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 173.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 69.8 %
Waterplane Area: 8,813 Square feet or 819 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 75 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 38 lbs/sq ft or 184 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.50
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 0.55
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

This is a definite departure from the past for the Persian Navy.

Size-wise, I think that the ships are spot on for modern destroyers, and the armament outfit is well thought out and balanced.

The sea-keeping at speed and steadiness as a gun platform would concern me though. While the ships might be adequate for the confined waters of the Persian Gulf, I would be concerned for them in more open waters where worse sea states could be encountered. This is one reason why I'm ready to sacrifice a bit of speed for better seakeeping characteristics, but that merely my opinion.

Overall though, not bad.

I'm personally of the view that a 1.00 value is unrealistic for a destroyer - that it represents average seakeeping for a much larger, major warship. Hence, I'm comfortable working in the 0.50 to 1.00 range for smaller, faster ships such as destroyers, which had iffy seakeeping historically anyway.

I agree things might be iffy if they get out into the Indian Ocean in crappy weather, but that's probably true for any destroyer, whatever SS may say about its seakeeping.

Glad you approve of the armament and such, though. The previous Persian class, with ten guns, seemed to be over-armed from my perspective.

or the Northern Pacific, but Persians have wisely fit their design to their critical requirements. We Russians pay 18% more for destroyers that can deal with our stormy seas.

Quite correct; while I will agree that bad weather is going to impact any ship, smaller vessels will be impacted to a greater degree; hence my preference for better sea-keeping at speed.

In combing through the Philippine Navy's inventory I've found far too many small "cruisers" witih seakeeping below 1.00 - combine that with the propensity for typhoons to cruise through Philippine waters, and it can ruin your day.

I've seen a tendency for some designs to carry far too much armament for their displacement and while SS says it works, I have my doubts. In the case of the Ayask class, I think it all works out.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I
Glad you approve of the armament and such, though. The previous Persian class, with ten guns, seemed to be over-armed from my perspective.

The Burijas class was meant as AA escorts for the now sunk battlecruiser which is why I was surprised that P99 built another in 1939 as they had lost their intended purpose

Looks good to me. Nice blend of characteristics.
I guess at a pinch you could trade range for seakeeping as 6,000nm at 15kts is a decent patrol range for the Gulf.

I do agree with Bruce about the seakeeping - I won't touch anything with less than 1.00 - but I think these are pretty decent ships aside from that one bone of contention.