Talk:HESA Shahed 136

Misinformation

The source ("Iranian Shahed-136 Kamikaze Drones Already Used By russia (First Photos And Specs) | Defense Express". en.defence-ua.com. Retrieved 2022-09-29.) in the article is full of misinformation

The engine is a reverse engineered Limbach L550E It is a patented design, this engine is reverse engineered by Iranian MADO company made under the designation of M550 and used in many. different other Iranian UAVs. Quick search on google will show

Oleg Katkov "analysis" isn't of a Shahed-136, but a Shahed-131, its predecessor

The drone isn't guided using "civilian GPS" as he says but: Terminal Guidance:

1. Via IR sensor in the nose cap (Also seen in other UAS models)

2. Guided via another Recon UAV via datalink. Recon UAVs such as Mohajer-6 seen in Ukraine can act as commanders and flying relays to guide suicide drones to their targets that are loitering around.

On to the body, alot of "analysts" believe the body is the same as a Harpy or some Harpy-copy. Once again, with very minimal research, one can see the honeycomb RAS design, layered with carbonfiber interior, and fiberglass exterior. This is part of the reason why radars have such trouble catching them from long ranges, the size of the drone is also twice of a Harpy drone and Harop

You simply cannot use commercial GPS to target something slightly thicker than a telephone poll perfectly. Or as they used it to target refinery towers in Abqaiq in 2019. It is simply not possible without accurate terminal guidance.

This analysis have been talked a lot on defense forums, this is a minimal research also using Shahed-131 as a reference

This is what he used as a reference: https://inf.news/en/military/92ce2368d61455bcbd741c5bc15f7874.html It is a Shahed-131 reference, which isn't used neither produced. And this analysis contradicts a lot of things said in his article, he is saying that he refers also to Iranian sources, but yet he manages to claim which guidance method it uses, which GPS, and the materials used

In this same article contains a baseless fake news: ""On September 26, the Ukrainian armed forces fired Haimas rockets at the management and training center of Iranian drone operators in the Kherson region, and about 20 Iranian instructors and 40 Russian military personnel who had gone to Russia were eliminated."

I would be careful using sources from Ukrainian outlets or "The Washington Institute", that are everything but neutral and profesionnal, all of his claims concerns the Shahed-131 drone if he is using the above "analysis" for his claims, because they are factually full of flaws, such as saying "Aliexpress jammers will counter them easily", it is a rushed analysis mostly made to demonize the products after they have been used by Russia, but none of what he says is actually correct, so far no one have spread this misinformation PR piece on something else than Ukraine outlets.

Also "At the same time, the use of this drone filmed by Iran cannot serve as a credible sourse because of possible "additional pyrotechnic effects". Iranian propaganda has been repeatedly caught using them.", this is clearly a non-neutral outlet using no other source at all but his imagination, defending as much as possible his country while demonizing everyone else, with a distorted source not even mentioned in this article

2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This is itself minsinformation at its best. None of the drones in Ukraine had sensors.--Anidaat (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I am talking of Shahed-136, what Iran possess and not Russia, and it has a sensor on its nose cone on Iranian photos, quick search on google will show, the drones delivered/manufactured in Russia doesn't have it, make a second page about Geran-2 and put the Ukrainian/Turk outlets "analysis" in it https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/10/irans-shahed-136-kamikaze-drone-everything-you-need-to-know/ "Admittedly, some Shahed-136s do appear to have cameras, infrared, or radar-homing seekers fitted in the nose, particularly for guidance against moving targets. It’s unclear whether any of Russia’s are so equipped." 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer Serafart (talk) (contributions) 19:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

---

HESA Shahed 136 → Shahed 136 – Recent sources linked on this article seem to prefer the use the named "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" without the HESA prefix, such as:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-use-of-iranian-kamikaze-drones-creates-new-dangers-for-ukrainian-troops-11663415140

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/russia-escalating-use-of-iranian-kamikaze-drones-ukraine-reports-say

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/24/ukraine-to-reduce-iran-embassy-presence-over-russia-drone-attacks

It seems to me that simply "Shahed 136" or "Shahed-136" is the common name for this weapons system Serafart (talk) (contributions) 06:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this motion; other aircraft pages include the manufacturer's name before the model name. 36.65.242.246 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) The RedBurn (ϕ) 08:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I see. I will withdraw this request now, as I see no chance of this move succeeding. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 19:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Shahed-136.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the word "Geran" be used in this article?

The aircraft is referred to as 'Geranium" in previous paragraphs and I found the use of "Geran" jarring in subsequent paragraphs without previous context. NoelyNoelyNoel (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s because Russia labeled them as Geranium 2 but social media users shortened it to Geran 2 so that’s what they call it now Bobisland (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Geranium in Russian is transcribed as "Geran". The language itself shortens the word 36.65.242.246 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Institue and Ukrainian/Russian sources

Is it wise to use sources coming from an Ukrainian outlet and a Saudi-Israeli-funded think tank to speak about things related to Russia/Iran??

This again is full of flaws, they are basing their claims on a Shahed-131 drone, not 136

The Washington Institute claim about being a "cheap chinese copy" is baseless, this isn't because there is a copy available that it is this one, the engine comes from a directly reversed Limbach named into M550, what China has to do with that? they are not citing sources themselves but a non-neutral writer writing what he wants, same for the Ukrainian outlet claiming things such as "Iran propaganda uses pyrotechnical effects" or a fake news "40 Russian and 20 Iranian instructor got eliminated in Kherson", why would Iranian instructor be in the front line teaching Russians how to use a 1000km range drone? Also no source in the article as always but himself, they are writing with their emotions and hatred only

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy This is clearly written at the first line, this is a hardcore pro-Israel lobby and think tank, is it logical to use them as "source" for something concerning Iran and making claims? This is like if a Russian think-tank starts talking crap about Ukraine military, and using it as a source here concerning the invasion...

There is no trustworthy outlets talking about this but Ukrainian ones or a well known IsraeliSaudi funded think-tank 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ya there’s a lot of political bias users editing but if it doesn’t break a technical rule then not much would happen unless you go against it yourself using facts, you should create a account so your I.P doesn’t show Bobisland (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

It is used by the IRGC Aerospace Force, not Artesh

Shahed-136 is used by the IRGC Aerospace Force only for Iran, Artesh have their own drones such as Omid for loitering ammunition

This one is reserved for IRGC missile forces (Aerospace Force), if someone could change Islamic Republic of Iran Army to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, i do not know how to edit that Tsunet (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In the infobox Tsunet (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok Bobisland (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shahed 136 in yemen rebranded as Waeed.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Title

Despite the previous discussion on moving the page agreeing to keep the page title as "HESA Shahed 136", someone has proceeded to move it anyways, citing the fact that the other Shahed series aircraft do not use HESA in their page titles. Can we reach a consensus on this? 36.65.242.246 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Shahed 149 Gaza. The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove Washington Institue from sources

"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, D.C., focused on the foreign policy of the United States in the Near East.

it was established in 1985 with the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the funding of many AIPAC donors, in order to provide higher quality research than AIPAC's publications. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt described WINEP as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States."

DO NOT USE THIS AS A SOURCE FOR MAKING CLAIMS as well as Chinese components and aliexpress claims, you can't claim that the drone is chinese based on a google search of the engine showing up an aliexpress page of something that resembles to it and imply that it has been bought here in mass, there are already documents showing that it is the Limbach from the company bought using a fake company in the UAE and reversed from here and used in other drones, this isn't a source but themselves thinking it was bought on aliexpress because of their political bias and hatred

DO NOT LET POLITICAL BIAS USERS WRITE WHAT THEY WANT LOCK THE PAGE Tsunet (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Political subjects in this article

This is an article about a military drone, we should put everything about U.S sanctions, claims of every parties into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article or Iran–United States relations, and Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine articles, this isn't the place to put everything that is politic-related into. also indicate Iran said that it approved sales of missiles and drones Tsunet (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I added the accused violations of a U.N sanctions but someone deleted it Bobisland (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

People modifying mostly have political bias on this (or just pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, anti-Iran, pro-Turkey, pro-Iran, pro-NATO)

This is me i think who removed it but it got reverted

"During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine and its Western allies accused Russia of using the Shahed-136 from September 2022, albeit re-branded with a Russian designation Geran-2 (Russian: Герань-2, literally "Geranium-2"). Iran repeatedly denied sending arms for use in the Ukraine war, maintaining that it is neutral in the war and saying the claims are baseless and part of propaganda campaign against Iran" This is called POV pushing for the ending quote

"Various colloquial terms have been used for these drones due to their ubiquity, such as "mopeds" or "lawnmowers", alluding to the signature loud sound of their engine in flight, and "doritos", in reference to their delta-winged silhouette."

"led some to call it the "Aramco Killer" or "Beast of Aramco""

This has nothing to do on the lead of a military product article

This is literally a page about a military weapon, but half of it is dedicated to politics or Doritos, lawnmowers and such irrelevant things, i tried to remove every political subject like Russia denying or U.S imposing sanctions or Ukraine claims etc and asked to move them on the appropriate articles talking of the conflict, sanctions, like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article or Iran–United States relations, and Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and any political-related article about this. Tsunet (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the politics stuff can just be in the body of the article. The lead seems to usually contain the most basic information a grade-school enthusiast would be able to remember. 36.65.251.205 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Or we can make a section on the article but the article will turn into politics, the lead should not contain things that have nothing to do with the article itself,

During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine and its Western allies accused Russia of using the Shahed-136 from September 2022, albeit re-branded with a Russian designation Geran-2 (Russian: Герань-2, literally "Geranium-2"). Iran repeatedly denied sending arms for use in the Ukraine war, maintaining that it is neutral in the war and saying the claims are baseless and part of propaganda campaign against Iran.

This should be put inside the Overview section or inside the 2022 Russian war in Ukraine with a "Reaction" subsection but again it will turn into politics into an article related to a military product

maintaining that it is neutral in the war and saying the claims are baseless and part of propaganda campaign against Iran. This seems like pov pushing to me, specially when this is put directly on the lead of an article that isn't about politics but about a weapon 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the U.N resolution accusation mentions the shahed drones so I feel as if it’s relevant Bobisland (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I added them back in a dedicated section. 2A01:CB04:133:8000:2404:51F7:DB03:66E3 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Discussing adding the bombing of barracks of the 55th and 72nd brigades

I think they use reliable sources which is why I think they should stay up and be added to combat history, there are also several media links that show the bombings of the barracks themselves and the Ukrainian government confirmations that these barracks were hit and their statement about them Bobisland (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Shahed 131

Due to its great similarity to the 136 i propose that information on both drones be hosted on this page. There is precedent for separating two related Kamikaze drone developments (IAI Harpy and Harop) but i feel like the fact that Iran does not advertise its weapons' specifications (as of October 2022) and maintains its secrecy in weapons development it is unlikely that we would be able to make a proper page for the 131 due to the severe lack of information. Therefore i suggest a single page for both drone models. 36.65.251.205 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone has recently created a page for it

shahed 131 <— Bobisland (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

False text of Luzins statement

Luzin says NOT AT ALL that this is a loitering ammunition. The source says in the contrary: it has NO communication. Source Nowaya Gazeta. Anidaat (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact the Luzin sentence is with no context here - it is just an additional fact that would become relevant just in case (if it really was commandable - but it isnt't) - like all these other additional informations about (other) ammo mentioned in the sentences before. PLEASE don't mix up all these false sentences in all sources - one could actually produce a complete fake article by combining all mistakes - agree? --Anidaat (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Also the expert on drones in the Center for Security Studies says: NOT MANOUVERABLE. Again, this could be mistaken - it does manouver but not on external command.--Anidaat (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

False; it maneuvers when it's shot up by 7.62 rounds and can't maintain altitude or heading 180.244.128.130 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

How about reading what I wrote?--Anidaat (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It may have been steered in other occasions but Luzin says nothing at all about ground control of flights over Ukraine and nothing at all about their flight distances which may indicate it was possible. In fact this is just a general remark with no statement about the usage in 2022.--Anidaat (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

False claim of having discussed AND false claim of "political bias" about an expert assessment

The removal of the specialist is against all rules of Wikipedia

• The drone expert of the Center for Security Studies is not a political person. There is no bias, if you conclude what is obvious.
• There was NO discussion whatsoever after the insertion of the specialist - any claim, that it had been discussed, was a lie.

--Anidaat (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The claim that a small aircraft with a good flight range, a respectable warhead weight, and the ability to tie up air defenses would not be an effective weapon is frankly, absurd when reminiscing about the war in Nagorno Karabakh. Consider rewriting the passage before reimplementing the source into the article. 180.244.128.130 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I prefer sources to whataboutism of unkonwn strangers - that's the rules on Wikipedia.--Anidaat (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Now might be a good time for Bobisland to stop edit-warring and bring actual arguments against its inclusion, rather than just boldly proclaim that it's "bias political commentary". Kleinpecan (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

-The removal of its statement isn’t against all rules

-stating a countries weapons are designed to target civilians in a war is inherently political let alone to be based on it being a gps Precision-guided munition is itself a biased merit as HESA does not state they’re meant to target civilians

-If this was added it shouldn’t be added to the overview of its design it should be added into the Ukraine reactions tab which contains political news as the source uses the Ukraine war but I’m against adding this political commentary as it doesn’t add any new information (the civilian deaths are already listed in its combat history) and placing formats for bias political commentary to be in military weapon wiki pages seems like a bad/bias idea as this criticism will most likely not be placed on other gps guided munitions Bobisland (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Kleinpecan My reason for removing them was because it was bias that didn’t reach consensus not just bias itself? Your the one who’s edit warred as you reverted 3 times while my reverts were based on not reaching consensus, you’ve also reverted previous edits for false reasons on multiple occasions, all of which were politically related, even the edit you have up right now is still breaking rules based on consensus wp:EDITCON Bobisland (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

From what i've seen there is no consensus reached here. It's a deadlock of 2 in favor for keeping and 2 in opposition. 180.244.128.130 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Russia has inflicted serious damage on Ukrainian forces with recently introduced Iranian drones, in its first wide-scale deployment of a foreign weapons system since the war began, Ukrainian commanders say.".(https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-use-of-iranian-kamikaze-drones-creates-new-dangers-for-ukrainian-troops-11663415140) I don't know what the expert of the Center for Security Studies says in the original German audio, but we cannot say the drone is military useless. Hosortyr (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think CNN mentioned terror bombing why not just use that as a source instead in the reactions tab, if someone adds a source which gives a terror bombing Wikipedia link then I’d support it but not others including the WSJ one above as I think it’s a slippery slope that’ll lead the page to become full of back and fourth political commentary that won’t contribute much information Bobisland (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree this is WP:FRINGE, ie "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views", and also it is debatable if the source is WP:RS as is the case for too many of the article's cites. It is also hard to verify as audio in German. If we look at what the clearly WP:RS cites in the article say on the topic we find:

• "Russia has inflicted serious damage on Ukrainian forces with recently introduced Iranian drones" ([30] - WSJ 2020-09-17)
• "Russia has launched Shahed-136s at military positions" ([8] - US Institute of Peace 2020-10-17)
• "the munition is capable of destroying tanks and other armoured vehicles" ([20] - Guardian 2020-09-29) >note: false assignment --Anidaat (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)<
• "potent, hard-to-stop and cost-effective weapon" ([17] - independent.ie, website of Irish Independent and Sunday Independent, 2020-10-17)>note: false assignment --Anidaat (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)<

I think this should be deleted as WP:FRINGE, clearly against the run of many other cites. Rwendland (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I support adding a claim using a terror bombing link as it’s informative military criticism which the reader can read into relating to its use in Ukraine Bobisland (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not about Ukraine, it is a technical fact. This is because it is the concept of the weapon.--Anidaat (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If there is something FRINGE here, it ist the opinion, these drones hit military equipment. The usual common thing in all sources is called civil « infrastructure » or « water stations».

The WSJ says it itself about September : “tend to have effect at first and then the shock effect wears off."

The Peace Source says "lauched" but mentions no success. In faxt the peace source asks: «And what impact have they had on the battlefield?» and answers - not at all. It lists on the contrary ONLY attacks on cities and a lot of infrastructure and residential building and does NOT mention a single military item being destroyed.--Anidaat (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Can't understand how you can say these drones hit military equipment is fringe while Ukrainian commanders reported the hits... Hosortyr (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I never said it is fringe, I said if someone else really wants to use fringe, one should first look at the numbers of mentions of military versus civilian hits. After that one can still discuss, whether an partly empty barrack really is the best military target with the highest priority.... :-)--Anidaat (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russian ministry of defense published multiple footage of its bombings against military targets including convoys can someone just post their clips in its operational history to debunk that they aren’t used solely for civilian targets or are all rights reserved? Bobisland (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Concept of the weapon

The concept is - absolutely obvious by the way it is released in groups - that "one will get through and get close to the spot".

• it is not far from carpet bombing though, where one was hoping that one "will get to the right spot".
• carpet bombing is a war crime (although I never felt that in the case of the allies in germany but times have changed).
• This weapon is a weapon where you cannot evade committing war crimes if used against "targets" in cities. their use has horrified the international community
• At the same time it is useless near any frontline - say the experts. (Center for Security Studies, German Officer, Mangott, Bendett and certainly others
• It is not precise - it is not a corrected military GPS but the cheapest possible element (read source Nowaya Gazeta) as well as other sources unsophisticated and with an unerring knack of striking civilian targets — apparently "unintentionally" / Never mind their lack of precision, they're expendable

--Anidaat (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

in short (not my assessment): The Shahed-136 is a superbly successful and super-efficient design in its class — a class of terrorist weapons industrially built for the deliberate purpose of attacking civilians.

Of course it is possible to write alternative facts instead - just use chinese twitter posts as it is being done in this Wikipedia article.--Anidaat (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"So far, the operational impact of these drones appears to be limited", "Their use is unlikely to prove a game-changer", "they could still pose a significant threat to Ukrainian forces, civilians, and infrastructure." There is "doubt on the strategic significance of these weapons in the strict operational sense. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to prematurely disregard their role". Source: European Council on Foreign Relations - https://ecfr.eu/article/no-loitering-what-russias-iranian-drones-could-mean-for-ukraine/ That's not Chinese Twitter posts - Hosortyr (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Are these alternative facts the same ones that stated the destruction of Ukraine's power grid? Anthropophoca (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian shootdown claims

Should we mention these claims? They are obviously propagandic lies for morale but i feel like we should mention some of it for context and reference. I feel like a lot of you will reject it but i will float the idea regardless. 180.244.128.130 (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a number of shot down drones according to the source that was in the article anyway.--Anidaat (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't present it as solid fact, being a claim made with little evidence. And I noticed you neglected to capitalize "Russia" in the article. Perhaps your shift key is broken when you press R? 180.244.135.21 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shahed136lm.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shahed 136 flying.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

False Claim / Fake Source

The source Economist (no60) does not say a single word about military targets. This is a fake, to use it for a sentence that was used in mid-september by WSJ. Not only Economist is silent about military targets, but also says: Russian strikes often simply aim to sow terror. But they do not appear to have affected Ukraine’s ability to fight. This is actually the contrary to what it has been used.--Anidaat (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Source 62 says: Russia is mainly using the Shahed loitering munitions to attack civilian targets and power infrastructure. Strikes on military objectives, including artillery and headquarters, have been the exception rather than the rule and is therefore misleading as a source for the claim as well

I've removed those refs. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Adding 400px to the picture of operators. Mahan122 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: We do not typically specify pixel sizes. I have added "upright=1.5" to enlarge the image, which was quite small for a world map. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

The sentece "Others said it can be used to carried out devastating strikes to Ukrainian forces but are unlikely to be a game-changer for the war.[62]" is wrong, as it cannot be in plural if there is a singular source. The characteristic of this source is beeing the only early one in September, where a general statement could not be made at all.--Anidaat (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Spelling mistake?

• "it apples to items".--it applies, seems to be proper spelling. Please correct the article. Thanks, 46.15.108.66 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching it. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the Electronics section also include Texas Instruments?

Hello fellow Wikipedians, in reading the following CNN article I see that it appears a TI processor has been found in the wreckage of a downed drone. However, when consulting the Wiki article, unless I'm mistake, I don't see TI listed? In fact the Defense Express article: used for the citation in the first sentence of the Electronics section also includes a mention of Texas Instruments. Also the Dallas News is also carrying the story here: Thanks for updating this article, if the information is deemed worthy. Taostlt (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does mention the use of a TMS320 processor, which is a Texas Instruments product. I don't know that we need to specifically name Texas Instruments in the article, as the processor was just one of many components found in the wreckage that were made by US and western companies. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

One way to add a mention of TI could be to add "Texas Instruments" in front of the processor name like this: "Texas Instruments TMS320" It doesn't look out of place, at least in my opinion. Michael60634 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, great suggestion. Very clean and intuitive. Taostlt (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Just of curiosity, did it occured to the author that those TMS320 may not be sourced from US or EU at all? After all, it's known that Russia produces clones of TMS320. 78.90.203.18 (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

All three sources mentioned here state that the drone contained parts made by Texas Instruments. If you look at the main image in the Texas Instruments TMS320 article, you will notice that the Texas Instruments logo is printed on the processor, making it easily identifiable as a TI product. Russian-made processors (as well as other foreign clones) lack the TI logo, and may have the logo of their manufacturer in its place. This photo of a Russian-made 1867BTs10T (TMS320 clone) is a good example of this. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Consider adding production sources of these UAVs operated by Russia during their invasion of Ukraine

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcVXcpBhGnM - in which it is claimed that this is a disassembly of the engine of Geran-2 (Shahed-136) drone downed in Ukraine (it can be verified by asking the authors at their telegram channel teoria_dvs about origin of engine). At the moment 10:30 in the video an aluminum part with a marking starting with MD. This is the mark of the Chinese manufacturer of L550E clones, which they respectively call MD550. Manufacturer name: Beijing Micropilot Uav Control System Ltd. The official website uavstar.com (can be found by searching the name on Google) The official store on Alibaba is respectively uavstar.en.alibaba.com (can also be found by searching there on Google) On Alibaba (there are even pictures #1 #2 #3 of a complete assembly with a nut with a slot as in 4:50 in video, a detail as in 10:30, same isolation of a sensor as in 14:15 and same plastic carburetor parts as in the video), prices are 15K USD per motor when ordering more than 100 sets.

PS: The official website has a lot of interesting stuff, including even a similar drone model called TD2000 High -Speed Target Drone (costs about 100K USD on Alibaba). 2A00:A041:22E1:1B00:F159:A239:FD50:50BE (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to cover that information, as YouTube is generally unreliable. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You right, but you cannot deny that all the parts in the video look exactly the same as on the manufacturer's sites.

Source of engine can be verified by asking the authors at their telegram channel teoria_dvs about origin of engine and/or details regarding proof of video and source reliability. 2A00:A041:22E1:1B00:F159:A239:FD50:50BE (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You right, but you cannot deny that all the parts in the video look exactly the same as on the manufacturer's sites. That is original research. We need reliable secondary sources, and the manufacturer's website is a primary source. Furthermore, I'm not sure that asking the authors on social media would be an acceptable source either. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please wikilink callsign "Karaya" to the pilot's biography article.

Please change

“ The Ukrainian pilot called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week. ”

to

The Ukrainian pilot Vadym Voroshylov called “Karaya” was credited with downing 5 Shahed drones in a week.

The name is already supported by the references attached to the current paragraph. (ref #62)

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done ZLEA _T\^C 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change language usage" "The first public footage of the drone were released in December 2021" to: "The first public footage of the drone was released in December 2021" Eholcroft (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - ZLEA _T\^C 22:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change the drone image description "A Shahed 136 drone at an exhibition" to "A miniature mockup of Shahed 136 at an exhibition".

This is clearly in contradiction with the wingspan, size of the drone in the specs which is way larger when seen near an human. Tsunet (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Tsunet The image does not appear to have any objects that could reliably be used as a size reference, so I'm confused as to how you came to that conclusion. Compare to this image and you will see that all of the access panels are present on the aircraft in the infobox image. This is an unusually high level of detail for a miniature mockup, which would usually have lines representing the panels, if the panels were to be represented at all. Perhaps if you can find another image online of a person or an object next to the same display and link it here, we could determine whether it is a miniature mockup or an actual aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The image you sent makes it look smaller because of the camera angle and the resolution, the very same drone remains but took on another angle:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a44796350/is-russia-forcing-teens-to-build-kamikaze-drones/ This is clearly more realistic to 3.5m of lenght

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/remain-of-shahed-136-at-an-exhibition-showing-remains-of-news-photo-1691782722.jpg?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=2048:*

Yemeni drone which is very similar to Shahed 136 near a human: https://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/n_670_395/public/main-image/opinion/2022/10/01/houthi_drone_parade.jpg?itok=ULnmkzcE

Zelensky near remains of the drone: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E77C/production/_127406295_zelensky.jpg

Also taking the image description:

"The exhibition of the capabilities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force, titled Sky of Power, was held on May 23, 1402 in the garden of the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and Holy Defense in Qom, and it was open to the interested and visitors until June 5, 1402, from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM"

"Museum" and "Open to public" also adds more doubt to claim that this image is a real drone, one of those produced in Iran/used in Ukraine

Taking another example, a "real" Israeli Harop drone next to a human: https://armenianweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/aliyev-1.jpg it looks to be even bigger than the image on this article when Harop is half the size of Shahed 136 Tsunet (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The image of the shot down Russian drone was to compare detail rather than size. My point is that there are no objects in the infobox image makes it hard to determine the size of the display. It may be that the camera angle makes it appear smaller than it actually is. Given this and the unusually high amount of detail for a miniature mockup, there simply isn't enough to go off of to definitively say that it is a mockup. "'Museum' and 'Open to public' also adds more doubt to claim that this image is a real drone" is conjecture, and without a source confirming that it is a mockup, we should not make that assumption. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to call it a "Shahed 136 display" for now until we can confirm whether it is an actual aircraft or mockup. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is another photo of this 136 on display on the same source website, which I think pretty clearly shows this is the full size drone by comparison with the people alongside. Rwendland (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Loitering"

I still see no source in this article which tells us why the 136 should be classified as "loitering munition". The quoted Guardian (9/22) [1] and European Council (10/22) [2] authors don´t really seem to understand what they are writing about and fail to define it anyway. Neither the Defense Intelligence Agency [3] nor the Institute for the Study of War [4] call the 136 "loitering munition". The 136 doesn´t seem to be more than a propeller driven V1 + Sat.nav.: Fly from "A" to "B" and crash nose first at the programmed coordinates. This article should be changed accordingly and the 136 should no longer be mentioned in the Loitering munition article. Alexpl (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and right now, reliable sources say that it is a loitering munition. If you disagree with their classification of the Shahed 136, then you should bring it up with the sources, as Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. I also recommend that you read WP:OR. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the U.S. Army ODIN database ([14] in article) classifies it as a loitering munition: "Shahed-136 Iranian Loitering Munition Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is a modern swarming drone ...". Also it is endlessly called a kamikaze or suicide drone in the media, which our loitering munition article says are aka names for loitering munition, and indeed kamikaze drone and suicide drone redirect to our loitering munition article. I see that this is backed up by the highly reputable Council on Foreign Relations which says "Shahed-136 (renamed by Russia as the Geran-2) is a loitering munition, although it is sometimes misleadingly referred to in media as a kamikaze or suicide drone." I'm sure searching into our cites would find others to support this. Rwendland (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it. You refer to the ODIN ID-card thing, which isn´t even a website and doesn´t contain any form of definition. 131 and 136 are cruise-missiles - with no jet or rocket engine. As definded by source 13[5] quote: "By this definition, the Shahed 131 and 136 deployed in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine are true cruise missiles, albeit of the propeller-driven, slow-flying kind. A loitering version with onboard homing sensors may exist, as is hinted by the successful attacks on moving targets such as the Mercer Street and more recently the Pacific Zirkon (November 2022). Yet if such a version does exist, the Iranians are still keeping it under wraps. In all know instances of their operations to date, whether in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine or against the Kurds in northern Iraq, the Shahed 131 and 136 are configured as cruise missiles." So right now, the article promotes Iranian fanboy-fiction. At least give the reader some sort of relateable definition for why this is "loitering". Alexpl (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

One source does not change the fact that most experts agree that it is a loitering munition. Perhaps the source could be used to state that some have expressed doubt that it is a loitering munition, it would have to be done in a way that does not violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. We also don't need to define what a loitering munition is in this article, as there is already a link to that article in the first sentence where readers can find the definition. And before you make anymore claims that the article "promotes Iranian fanboy-fiction", remember that the "Iranian fanboy-fiction" in question is sourced from experts. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So you can´t present any expert (among these or other sources), explaining why the 136 is supposed to be "loitering" munition. That is disappointing. Alexpl (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't need sources explaining why, only that it is or is not a loitering munition, and right now a vast majority of sources agree that it is. The Council on Foreign Relations has already been linked above. Other sources include the Center for Security Studies as well as the sources that you claimed have no idea what they're talking about. What's disappointing is that you have been editing since 2008 and seem to have no clue about the WP:OR or WP:FALSEBALANCE policies even after we pointed them out to you. If you want peace of mind about it, why not ask the CFR to explain their reasoning for calling it a loitering munition? - ZLEA _T\^C 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If the adjective "loitering" is used without any context or apparent understanding of the capabilities, such a source is dubious at best. Lauren Kahn in your cfr.org defines: "These munitions get their name from their ability to “loiter” in the air after being deployed, waiting until a ground-based operator identifies an opportune moment to strike a target. (...). Unlike drones, they are designed to be single-use weapons." - by that definition every (kamikaze/suicide) drone, that can receive updates in flight, would be "loitering munition". Let´s conclude this: Among that pile of quality sources - is there one which says, that the 136 (despite it´s lack of any onboard observation equipment - or suitable radio for that matter) is able to receive such updates? Alexpl (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided to "disprove" that the Shahed 136 is a loitering munition state state that the type as a whole lacks onboard observation equipment, only that many do not seem to be used as such. Even if it were making the claim, they does not give any evidence (a captured example or studied debris, for example) for the lack of such equipment, so pointing out the lack of such evidence from the majority of sources that claim it's a loitering munition is a bit ironic. If the claims are true and the units used in the war do not have homing sensors, then there are multiple explanations for why this could be. One is, as you say, that the majority of sources and experts are truly wrong and the type is not actually a loitering munition, which is unlikely given the known cases of them being used as loitering munitions. Another explanation is that the homing sensors can be removed and replaced with equipment that allows it to operate more like a cruise missile. If you truly believe that the sources claiming it is a loitering munition are unreliable, by all means bring it up at WP:RSN. Until then, trying to play logic games with this topic will not work until the majority of reliable sources support your argument. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Experts, and we only have a few of those in the article, rarely make that claim, let alone try to fabricate an explaination, why a loud, low and slow flying drone, with no observation equipment, should "loiter" over a target area for any given amount of time. There are several in-depth sources where the components used in the 136 are shown and no observation- or communication equipment, needed to qualify the 136 for a "loitering" drone, was present so far - afaik. So, churnalism and the occasional case of circular sourcing should explain the "loitering" (or even worse, the "swarm") - claims in otherwise reliable sources. But the only way to get rid of the sheer amount of contaminated sources right now, is via WP:Verifiability and "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community", I assume. Alexpl (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth? Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, so if you think the vast majority of sources are "contaminated", you are barking up the wrong tree. If Wikipedia ignores the consensus of multiple experts and sources, the consensus among them will never change. However, if you were to somehow convince them that they are wrong, then Wikipedia will be changed to reflect that. Furthermore, the claim that the Shahed 136 is a loitering munition is by no means exceptional because of its noise, as there have been many loitering munitions with similar powerplants such as the IAI Harpy and IAI Harop. I've already addressed that there are multiple explanations for the alleged lack of observation equipment on some units, and that it has not stopped many experts and even the US Army ODIN database from classifying it as a loitering munition. I doubt you can accuse think tanks or the US military of churnalism. Also, which sources are do you believe are referencing Wikipedia? Because that would be grounds to bring them to WP:RSN, which would help your case if turns out to be true. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We see the documentation of components from multiple wrecks in Ukraine and there is really no wiggle room for making the 131/136 some sort of "loitering" munitions. Looking into "better" sources produces quotes like "Some sources call it a “loitering munition,” but most seem to agree it should be a “direct attack munition” since it lacks the loitering capability. " [6] To acknowledge that in some way would already be a big win for the article. Alexpl (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That source does use some rather interesting wording that it "should be" a direct attack munition, but with this and the RUSI source we could at least mention that some disagree with the UAV's classification as a loitering munition. We just have to be careful to not violate WP:FALSEBALANCE as the majority still do classify it as a loitering munition and are backed up by reports that it has been used as such at least few times (as acknowledged by RUSI). - ZLEA _T\^C 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a "Classification controversy" section using those two sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, "classification" is the problem. As Peter Zellinger put it at the end of austrian article about the 136 a.o.: "(...) all loitering-munitions are kamikaze-drones, but not all kamikaze-drones are loitering munitions.".[7]. 136 is just a kamikaze-drone. Alexpl (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Researchers of the University of Southern Denmark and the University of London [8] May 2023 stated: "(...) As the Shaheds are not designed to loiter, we do not classify them as loitering munitions but as a “direct attack munition”" (page 60). They write, that there are suggestions, the 136 could be able to receive updated GNSS coordinates inflight. Even that (if prooven) still would not make 136 "loitering munitions". Now at least the dreadful "loitering" claim from the intro of this article should be removed. Alexpl (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We at least have another source for the classification controversy section. Before we can remove the "dreadful" loitering munition classification from the lede, we first have to figure out how to deal with the many reliable secondary sources that state that it is a loitering munition. We could just throw them out, but that would likely be seen by most editors as a WP:BALANCE violation. Perhaps you should open a formal RfC to get more eyes on this. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

All sources, which do not give an exemplification why the 136 is supposed to be "loitering munition" and are just using the adjective in a more inconsiderate manner, are not "reliable secondary sources" on that specific ability. Under that premise, there are not too many sources left. Alexpl (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've seen the "source is reliable except when it says this" argument. I will reiterate, if you want the changes to be made, open an RfC to allow a larger discussion to build consensus. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this looks like a case where normally-reliable sources may have got it wrong. The problem is that Wikipedia policy supports those sources unless and until we can find better sources to debunk them. A remark I saw somewhere that it "can loiter despite its small size" does suggest a fundamental error in the assumption that it can actually do so. Yes, I think and RfC would be a good way forward, as we have at least one sensible RS asserting the lack of such capability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

GNSS

What was that about? The presence of GNSS receivers on all 136 drones is a fact. It has not been disputed in any source in this article. Not even in the obviously stupid ones. Alexpl (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I read the source you provided and I was not able to find any statement that "every other known type of Shahed 136" was equipped with a GNSS antenna. Such a statement is original research, which is especially problematic given the contentious nature of this topic. If I'm wrong and the source does in fact support this claim, then feel free to prove me wrong by quoting the part that does. Otherwise, we need a source that actually supports the claim. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

At least I know now, what I´m dealing with. Alexpl (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the OCIMF report explicitly refers to the Shahed 131/136 as a loitering munition (LM) a total of five times, and not once does it try to dispute this classification. Taking specific statements from a source out of context to make it appear that it supports your claims is WP:CHERRYPICKING. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty straight forward to me. Wikipedia is a consensus-based encyclopedia, not a soapbox. All we ask is that claims be verifiable from reliable sources. That claim wasn't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Twitter and armyrecognition

User:ZLEA You claim Twitter-guy is one of two cited, and therefor apparently "citeable", sources? Whatever. At least the earlier, better, because sourced, mil.in.ua-article [9] (20 November) should be used for in-article citation instead of it´s inferior "armyrecognition"-clone [10] (22 November), which has basically the same text, but doesn´t give us the link to the iranian source material. Alexpl (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that some of the source material was posted on X. What matters is that Forbes, a reliable source that mentions the X post, considers it credible enough to use for their article. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Minor typo

In the Geran-2 section, it says: "seven transceivers for input and a FPGA and three microcontrollers to analyse". I think that should say an FPGA, not a FPGA. Feel free to delete or archive this comment once done. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

ReadOnlyAccount  Done - ZLEA _T\^C 23:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Label 3D model as "Artist's impression"

The 3D model is made as a game asset, and its wing shapes and proportions seem to significantly deviate from the photos in the article. (notice wing depth, rigid single steering wings at the back end, curvy many body "cigar" …)

As such it is misleading to contain it in an encyclopedia as anything as a work of art on the subject; it doesn't serve very well as visualization of how the aircraft actually looks.

It should thus be labeled as very artistry, not as technical drawing. (I'd actually recommend removal, it's better to not show a model, than a model that intentionally shows something else than what the article is about…) MüllerMarcus (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MüllerMarcus After reviewing the model, I agree that it is highly inaccurate. I've replaced the model with another image of an actual drone. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That exact 3D model seems to be in the original iranian promotional material. It is in the background on the photo in the infobox. Alexpl (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, the promotional material from the main photo appears to be identical to File:Shahed 136 rendering.png, which was sourced from the same Sketchfab as the 3D model on Commons. It paints an interesting picture on the state of Iranian marketing, as their official promotional material is apparently pirating images from Sketchfab (or more likely, in my opinion, directly from Commons) without proper attribution (at least not any that is visible in the low resolution photograph). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This kind of promotional material can often not be regarded as a reliable source. It can be useful when writing about plans and intentions, not so much with the technical details - concept art being a classic example; the product is notable, the concept art is not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I see massive problems with reliable sources in the entire article anyway. Even basic stuff, like the dimensions of the drone, seem to be wrong. When such data are copied from Wikipedia into hundreds of media outlets, it doesn´t elevate the credibility of the original claim. Alexpl (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that any sources considered reliable by Wikipedia are copying from Wikipedia, you should bring them to WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you see us posting and citing a number that is wrong, please raise the reliability of the source on this talk page, and advise us of your more reliable source for the correct number. (And yes, you have put your finger on the reason why Wikipedia does not regard itself as a reliable source). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

The Iranian Shahed drones were actually designed in South Africa by Kentron (Today Denel dynamics) In the late 1980s, Kentron sold the designs for its ARD-10 loitering drone to IAI. IAI then used those designs to develop the Harpy which was first tested in 1989.[2] "South African heritage". Air Forces Monthly. December 2022. p. 23. so The site should include Iran and South Africa as place of origin. Golem made of Pierogi (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Being based on a South African drone does not make South Africa its national origin. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The $193k figure is misleading and needs better contextualization

That figure is the cost per unit to Russia in gold bullion along with all associated tech transfer, facility construction etc. The same leaks cited give a production cost of ~$49k. It's not totally wrong to mention the higher $193k figure but it's extremely misleading to an unfamiliar reader at first glance without the unit cost also being listed. That production cost is also for early stage production which is always more expensive, so it's not really understating the cost to use the $49k figure in isolation either. I've been picking apart these leaks with other people and we more or less share the conclusions of this article: https://www.twz.com/news-features/what-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost LowRhoUfo (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

LowRhoUfo I think the unit cost should probably be removed altogether per WP:NOTPRICE. With few exceptions, the price of a weapon or aircraft is rarely of encyclopedic value. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That is absolutely not the case. Unit costs for military hardware are absolutely of encyclopedic value, and WP:NOTPRICE -- more fully "Wikipedia is not...A resource for conducting business" is wholly inapplicable to this scenario. Per that policy: "Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article." That is not even remotely applicable to this scenario, in which no business is being conducted (or attempted) and the unit cost is explanatory and relevant to broader contexts like the cost-effectiveness of Ukraine's surface-to-air interceptors vs. a Shahed. Further, it also states that it's fine if there are "independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The cost per unit of the Shahed-136 and it's interceptors have long been a subject of mainstream media discussion. A simple google search for "Shahed 136 price" provides a number of examples of such discussion. We're literally discussing one of those sources right now in this thread. Sorry, I'm reverting the removal of the unit costs if that's the policy reasoning prompting it.

I see LowRhoUfo's point that there may be a better way to present the figure in such a way that it doesn't include the cost of tech transfer. However, those things *are* typically factored into unit costs (which is why they decrease with time and scale.) FWIW the GAO defines Unit Cost by the equation Y = AXb, where Y = the cost of the Xth unit, A = the first unit (T1) cost, X = the unit number, and b = the slope coefficient of the learning curve. The tech transfer costs along with all other fixed costs leading to the first delivered unit are part of the "A" variable. So I don't think the $193k figure is actually incorrect or misleading. (See note below -- I don't think TWZ disagrees with me either). However, there may be a more effective way to convey the breakdown, e.g. presenting the cost for production, and the actual all-up unit cost, separately.

Put another way, $193k is the unit cost for *this* batch. It may not end up being the unit cost for the next batch of orders -- it's pretty standard that per-unit costs change over time and we present them as such on other articles, e.g. Tomahawk_(missile) in which we break down the unit cost as ($1.87 million (FY2017)[3] (Block IV) $2 million (FY2022)[4] (Block V) Export cost: $4 million (FY2023)[5]). And I would add that the Warzone article LowRhoUfo linked above doesn't dispute this. The relevant quote:

However, the documents state that there was a plan for full localization of production in Russia with minimal supply of Iranian components that could be executed in 2023, with the projected cost of each Shahed-136 dropping to about $48.800 each. The all-in 'transfer' price was at $165,500 per unit, Militinaryi reported. "This gap is probably due to the mortgaged payments for linear production, additional costs, and investments in the enterprise." In other words, this would be the all-in cost of the program, including infrastructure and licenses, amortized across the production run. The more you build, the less that number would be as fixed costs are further offset. This would give a total program cost of just under $1B.

The statement that the fixed costs could be reduced to a point that Shaheds could produced at $48,000 each was referring to an estimate based on a proposal for fully localized Russian production -- a plan that never actually occurred. In a hypothetical, future block of production, perhaps they could get those costs down. But in the *current* block of orders, that's not the case. The gold bullion part is irrelevant -- it still has a dollar value equivalent; that it is in gold is a factor of Russia's attempts to avoid getting caught violating sanctions.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Well then, I stand corrected. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What would y'all think about breaking it out like this:

• Unit Cost (2023): appx $193,000 (Iranian export)

appx $165,500 (proposed Russian domestic production)

I'm kind of ambivalent on putting in the production cost because what it's reflecting is essentially cost of materials. It seems to me it would be significantly more misleading to a reader to present a theoretical cost of materials on paper, that doesn't actually represent the dollar (ruble) value anyone actually paid -- Iranian, or Russian. And that's not something we typically have included on other ordnance articles. But if we did include it, it would go below the other two like this:

• Production Cost (2023) appx $48,800

Thoughts?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Though it may not violate WP:NOTPRICE, I am not a fan of including the unit cost in the infobox for many of the same reasons that WikiProject Aviation retired the "unit cost" parameter from the aircraft infobox three years ago. In cases where the unit cost is of encyclopedic value, it would be easier to cover such information in the body of the article. Including the unit cost in the infobox opens the door to unnecessary complications including but not limited to inflation and currency conversion. You used Tomahawk (missile) of an example of an article that breaks down unit cost by variant and export, but that article illustrates another problem I have with unit costs in infoboxes, in that there is often no one unit cost figure that can represent the weapon as a whole. In fact, I have a lot of problems with the current layout of Template:Infobox weapon. Including the specifications in the infobox creates the same problem as the unit cost and leads to an oversized mess that can easily spread down several average-sized article sections. Perhaps I should be voicing my concerns about the infobox on its talk page, but I am including them here as they provide context for my argument.

On a side note, I have nothing against including the proposed unit cost breakdown in the article's body. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are fair concerns, though I'd agree they're probably better directed at the infobox talk itself. I do think there's perhaps some nuance between the Aviation Wikiproject and weapon system infobox implementations, in that weapon systems usually only need to show the lowest cost for each significant version, but the differences between blocks/versions can often be significant to a much greater degree than between individual buys of aircraft. For instance with the Tomahawk the difference between each TLAM block is enormous in terms of capability, range, weight, warhead type, and functionality; while the difference between each variant is also significant (sub launched, nuclear, surface launched, etc.) In many ways they are completely different systems that really only share the same name/nomenclature. Significantly different than say, two separate purchase buys for a 787 Dreamliner for two separate airlines, with different cabin configurations but which are still fundamentally the same aircraft. In an ideal world we'd have pages for each Tomahawk variant and each could have one single unit cost on them, which would also cut down on the clutter; but we don't and currently everything is in one single weapon family page. That's a bigger organizational question I think than even just the infobox, though.

Regardless FWIW, I don't have strong opinions either way whether the unit cost is included in only the infobox, only the article body, or both, other than that I think there's arguments both ways. Including it in the infobox has the pro of being naturally where a reader would expect to see data of that type, and presents it up front, allowing them to get more context deeper in the article. On the other hand, the chief con is the clutter concern you mentioned. Having the cost in the article body allows for more understandable context for how the info is presented, because a lot of the time it's going to be something like "In FY 2023, the DoD acquired XXXX of the system for YYY cost" and if there's enough acquisitions you could put it in a table format listing the cost each year. On the other hand, that means the info is buried, potentially at the bottom of a long article, and at least anecdotally speaking for myself, after nearly two decades of looking for cost data in the infobox, I'd personally find it jarring to have to dig for it elsewhere. But that's just my personal experience, worth no more than anyone else's. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A baseless unverified leak posted by a opposing countries government official shouldn’t be written as fact Bobisland (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability to a reliable source, not the truth of the underlying matter asserted. There are numerous reliable sources reporting the existence of the leak. It is indisputable that this leak was a newsworthy event discussed by papers of record and major media outlets around the world. We are not writing it as "fact" -- hence the use of the word "reportedly." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I just don't get why we're citing the obviously inflated cost of the Geran-2 licensed variant of the 136 as the 136's unit cost. Like one could spin the Russian variant off into it's own article and cite the value north of $150k (although that would stil be misleading to the causal reader). Why are we citing that number on the page about the Iranian system when we know they cost south of $50k to make within Russia when you're not paying for tech transfer and facility construction? I have a hard time understanding why any number above $48.8k should be cited on the page about the iranian unit. The highest estimate previous to these leaks was €50k, and that was for early low vol production within Iran and seems to totally nail internal Iranian assessments LowRhoUfo (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Because that *is* what the unit cost is. What you're calling "obviously inflated" is the accurate number. You seem to be confusing production cost with unit cost. Unit cost *includes* fixed costs like tech transfer, capital construction, etc. It is the actual cost paid per unit delivered; not the hypothetical cost of materials and labor viewed in a vaccuum. Furthermore, we have no source that actually makes a claim that the cost is $48,800 -- the leak simply stated that *if* Russia underwent domestic production, they could get the production price down that far. That is not a thing that actually happened though. It is, in fact, the least accurate number for anyone to report, as it neither reflects the actual acquisition cost for Russia, nor any other prospective entity. For the record, we do not include the cost of production on any other ordnance article, nor have we at any point I've been aware of in the nearly two decades I've been editing military and defense-related articles on this project. Take a look at literally any comparable U.S. weapon system's article -- if it includes a unit cost, that cost is always the actual price paid by the U.S. government divided by the number of units ordered; not the cost to the manufacturer to produce it. There is no reason we would do it differently here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd also note that we're going to get a better picture of the electronics cost to RF within the next few days/weeks so my stance might change, but that's on the heels of new evidence and I plan on sticking to citable sources in making that case. Just don't get surprised if I'm taking a new angle soon LowRhoUfo (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the tea leaves here, not talking about things I can proximately cite, I think the Shahed-136 and Geran-2 are eventually going to be broken into separate articles as manufacturing needs diverge. I don't think we're at that point yet, but that's where we'll be in 9 months and we should be planning for that even if that's not where we are currently LowRhoUfo (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would make sense to do so unless the two systems become significantly technically different. Typically we do not have separate articles for identical weapon systems with different names; we use the primary system and indicate other variants in-line in the article text. For instance, the article for IAI Harop covers both the original Israeli-made system as well as the licensed-produced Indian copy as they're fundamentally the same system. We tend to split articles only when there's significant technical differences, such as from GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb to GBU-53/B StormBreaker; or when there end up being notable design differences betweeen the families (such as from BGM-71 TOW to Toophan, where the systems diverge substantially with subsequent Iranian variations AND there's notable history there to discuss that wouldn't be applicable to the main TOW article). It's possible this could happen, and the Geran-2 develops into a family with extensive history independent of it's Shahed 136 origins. But that's a future problem to address.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I never said it wasn’t reported by notable media, the leaked documents are written as factual and not unverified, the cost of each shahed drone isn’t properly attributed and the sales price is written as the unit cost, which itself is not attributed properly, the unit cost estimates, including the label of estimates have also been removed within the infobox Bobisland (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding. It's not our responsibility to ascertain the truth of the leak. It is of encyclopedic value and being discussed in reliable sources, which our readers can verify the citations to. That is the inclusivity standard for Wikimedia. The rest of your statements are flatly wrong. The sales price is not written as the unit cost (the sales price was $1.75 billion). The source is attributed and cited correctly. The speculative unit cost estimates were removed because they were not accurate and were replaced with actual data; there is no reason to use an incorrect estimate when you have the actual data at hand. Please stop making false accusations. If you want to fight a culture war over Ukraine, do it somewhere else please. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not trying to fight a culture war over Ukraine in a wiki talk page and I never said it wasn’t of encyclopedic value, the 193,000 number is based on the sales price according to the source, the source also does not state the documents as factual so I don’t have to assert ascertain anything I’m talking about, meaning attributing the sources is not incorrect, Saying all previous estimates are wrong because of this source is also incorrect as again your basing this off of the source and documents itself being verified when they aren’t, and are based on a sales price, the same logic you are applying of encyclopedic value is also represented in these estimates as notable sources are used for them. They aren’t attributed properly, along with the price itself Bobisland (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're arguing a strawman here -- the article does not make any assertion that the document is factual. As I've already stated, that's why it uses the phrase "reportedly." I cannot understand the rest of what you're saying, unfortunately. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

from the source:

“Moscow signed a $1.75 billion contract for 6,000 of the unmanned aerial vehicles”

“Citing the group's findings, Mr Gerashchenko said the cost of each Shahed-136 was believed to be $193,000 per unit when ordering 6,000 drones and about $290,000 per unit when ordering

2,000.”

This isn’t a unit cost but a sales price, which the number 193,000 is based on, the number is also not properly attributed to Gerashchenko which is where the number originated in a tweet he made

“The purchase cost of the Shaheds from Iran is:

- about $193,000 per unit when ordering 6,000 units;

- about $290,000 per unit when ordering 2,000 units.”

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1754901906323808469?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1754901906323808469%7Ctwgr%5Ed5d23a3f2876084a64943f646b4c52e408050187%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twz.com%2Fnews-features%2Fwhat-does-a-shahed-136-really-cost

The wiki page writes the documents as:

“According to leaked documents, the Russian military in 2022 reportedly imported 6000 units”

This is written as if the documents are verified but the contents within the documents aren’t, the source doesn’t state the documents as verified and should be written as such in the Wiki page Bobisland (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Your continued insistence on misunderstanding what unit cost is, while admirable, is unhelpful. You are welcome to look at practically any other similar article that claims a unit cost on this wiki, and you'll find them to have been determined by the actual cost paid for delivery of those units. And I'm sorry, it's just gaslighting to insist that us saying that using modifiers like "according to..." (meaning, we are not advancing a primary claim) and "reportedly" (meaning, we are not making a claim of veracity) means we are treating these claims "as if the documents are verified". It's literally the exact opposite. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it -- it is *irrelevant* to us whether the contents of the documents are verified. They exist, they are covered by reliable sources which we have cited, and they make a newsworthy and encylcopedically notable claim, and we are covering them as such. We are not making primary statements here as to their veracity. You are literally imagining a strawman scenario here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Again I never said it wasn’t reported by reliable media, the reliable media doesn’t write it as fact, and should be written as such in the Wiki article, you have also removed all previous estimates which should be reverted as your merit “we now have a confirmed unit cost, removing speculative guesses.“ is false as again the documents are unverified and based on a sales price which is written as such by the source, “determined by the actual cost paid for delivery of those units” is the price of the company selling something not the actual sale price again I linked unit cost which you’ve mistook for price per unit, and “according to” is for attributing people not unverified documents per WP:WTW. I don’t know what unit costs you want me to use as examples as M1 Abrams and FGM-148 Javelin write both the sales price and unit cost within the unit cost info box and specifies them as such Bobisland (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I want you to stop and actually look at the examples you just cited there. FGM-148 Javelin cites three unit costs: one for the G-model, one for missile exports only, and one for the CLU only. On the Abrams article, they're the domestic cost for the M1A1 (both in 1989 dollars and 2023 dollars), and the export cost for the M1A2SEP. Again, every single one of these examples is the price paid by the U.S. government across the number of units in the run, *NOT* the cost to produce it for the manufacturer. We do not use that system for *any* ordnance article that I am aware of. Your claim that we "write both" is flatly wrong -- either you never checked, or you're lying, and I'm honestly not sure which is worse, but you're clearly not operating in good-faith here. The fact that you do not understand the difference between unit price and production cost even after having the literal U.S. government definitions linked to you, and then broken down and explained several times to you, is becoming disruptive at this point. Similarly with your seeming inability to grasp our policies around verifiability. Let's break down what you said as it's difficult to understand/parse:

• the reliable media doesn’t write it as fact, and should be written as such in the Wiki article -- we are not writing it as "fact" either. In fact, we go out of are way to make it clear that we are not. You are consistently misrepresenting what the article says.
• you have also removed all previous estimates -- as I've already explained, per their sources themselves, those estimates were based on no data, only speculation -- and we now have actual data that meets our sourcing requirements so those estimates were replaced with actual sourced figures. See WP:OLDSOURCES for an explanation of why we do this.
• is false as again the documents are unverified-- Once again, I repeat -- the existence of the documents is absolutely 100% verified by reliable sources; whether their veracity (which is what you are talking about here) is verified is *NOT* our criteria for inclusion. Please, stop what you're doing right now, and go read WP:V, WP:TRUTH and WP:RS, then return to this discussion. I will include some relevant portions below.
• and based on a sales price which is written as such by the source, “determined by the actual cost paid for delivery of those units” is the price of the company selling something not the actual sale price -- this is literally a self-contradictory sentence, but thank you for admitting finally that even the sources claim $193,000 is a unit price.

I've corrected the mistakes you've introduced into the infobox. Please do not do that again. If this continues, I'm going to bring it to dispute resolution. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information."

— WP:V

"The statement is verifiable, even if not verified."

— WP:NOR

"Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth...Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."

— WP:TRUTH

"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."

— WP:OLDSOURCES

Compromise wording for in-line text section

As a potential compromise, since I was unable to find any mainstream media source using the phrase "unverified" in regards to the leaks, I've adjusted the wording to "the provenance of which is not clear", which is a quote from The War Zone, (and also readded the ref, which seems to have disappeared at some point in one of the edits.) Again, I want to reiterate -- that is not us making a claim, that is us reporting on a reliable source making the claim. Does that work for you Bobisland? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

The 'Export' section states "According to leaked documents, the Russian military in 2022 reportedly imported 6000 units for a $1 billion ($190000 per unit) in gold backed Russian crypto-currency.[105]"

The cited source 105 does not corroborate this and in fact explicitly states that gold bullion was physically shipped as payment, with no mention of cryptocurrency being used at any point. 81.145.142.37 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"also known by its Russian designation"

The Geran is not identical to the Shaheed. It's very blatantly manufactured in a factory in Tatarstan that Ukraine has attempted to destroy TWICE. The Geran is literally a remake with Russian parts BASED on the Shaheed blueprints that Russia DID purchase from Iran. But it's 100% made in Russia and even designed in Russia as it was a complete overhaul of the original. Iran is NOT exporting any drones to Russia(they possibly sold a batch of a few hundred together with the blueprints, but that's it). The only claims about that, are not only completely unsupported, but comes from people in the west eager for more sanctions or war with Iran. It's embarasing to see such blatant proclamation of propaganda on wikipedia. Again, we KNOW exactly which factory in Tatarstan makes the Geran. It's not even a secret. If you put a Shaheed and a Geran next to each other, the small differences are instantly visible and obvious. So please do explain exactly how you can keep up the faerytale about Geran being Shaheeds made by Iran? 178.174.137.13 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They are being made in Yelabuga. And they are constantly improved. So a statement that was correct last year, may not reflect todays situation. None the less, they bought those drones from Iran in the first place. Alexpl (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The manufactory didn't even exist when the drones were first relabelled "Geran-2". – Primium (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024

Edit number of produced from “Unknown” to “Atleast 5,000” 2A02:214C:8829:4700:5178:9EFB:2266:14F0 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Overcitation

@Swatjester The absence of prior discussion does not mean a maintenance tag is unwarranted or should be removed. In this case, one or two quality sources could suffice, and footnotes and citation bundling are also alternatives. Instead, there are four sources for the supporting fact that a "loitering munition" is also called a "kamikaze drone or suicide drone." It isn't even the main point of its own sentence. – Primium (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, the existence of a maintenance tag in an article does not mean that it was appropriately added. Normally, I'd agree that one or two quality sources would suffice; however in this case the classification/categorization of the Shahed 136 in the lead -- whether it's a loitering munition, kamikaze drone, suicide drone, cruise missile, or otherwise -- has been the subject of controversy (this section in particular). In particular, the sources that support the classification were at question. If there was a clear consensus on what to call it (and how to source it), we could likely get away with fewer sources, but we've had that discussion recently and didn't achieve one. Additionally, the normal solution to this (citation bundling) is not easily available as at least some of the sources are reused elsewhere in the article. Thus, in this case, it doesn't seem particularly harmful to the article that a specific, controversial claim, has in this case four sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2024

in the section about 10,000 microphones, change "apart" to "a part" 66.58.140.243 (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2024 (2)

deceiptful -> deceitful. Firefox web browser can identify these misspellings automatically for you, you know? 66.58.140.243 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Apparently wikt:deceiptful is obsolete for deceitful. I must be obsolete because it looked ok to me! On my phone (Australian English) the auto suggest favours deceiptful. Probably a regional thing. But the article is locked in to American spelling (each article gets to choose US or British etc, WP:ENGVAR) so I changed it. Commander Keane (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)