Talk:Shahab-3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This means that the INS/gyroscope guidance would also remain relatively accurate until impact (important, given the fact that the gyrosopes tend to become inaccurate the longer the flight lasts). With that guidance system, the Shahab-3B could achieve an accuracy of around 30-50m CEP or even less.

The Pershing II MRBM had a CEP of 50m using terminal active radar guidance together with INS. And that is still today the state-of-the-art. So the CEP of the Shahab can under no circumstances even be near 50m. It is grossly exaggerated--Arado 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New CEP estimates were sourced and unsourced, older references were removed. Erkenbrack (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocal range[edit]

The lead expresses some uncertainty of the Shahab-3: "An early variant could fly 1,300 km; a later one may reach nearly 2,100 km." Has this potential been realised? I ask because some news reports state categorically it has a 2,000 plus kilometer-range. Can we have a reliable source clarify the situation? Ta. smb 14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmed range of the Shahab-3 remains ~750 miles. Iran is claiming an extended range of up to ~1250 miles but an independent analysis of Iranian launch footage has verified that the missile is exactly the same as the model from 1998. Iran still has not demonstrated an ability to reach Israel. I've included the link from the AP. [1]
Readeraml (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of definitive evidence for the 1250-mile range for the Shahab-3 reinforces the fact that the Shahab-3A subtype (with a range of 750 miles) is the only known variant of the missile. The map for the missile's range needs to be redrawn with the missile's demonstrated range substantially reduced.
Readeraml (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab-3B has been tested many times, Shahab-3B has a range of 2100KM and the image was correct, the image should be back showing the maximum range of the Shahab-3, which is 2100KM+. 72.136.194.98 (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been firmly established. The diagram should depict its basic, uncontested range. — eon, 10:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CEP Data Needs Correction[edit]

According to Jane's Defence Weekly of March 22, 2000, "...The Shahab-3 used a inertial guidance system with a CEP Circular error probability of 3 km." Additional sources for this include the following:

http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.107/missile_detail.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm

Big61bethel (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)big61bethel[reply]

Guess I was late on this comment by about 5 minutes - please disregard. Big61bethel (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)big61bethel[reply]



the CEP is not 3km for the Shahab 3B. that might have been the CEP for the early Shahab 3 variant, not Shahab 3B.

"the Shahab-3B could archive an accuracy of around 30-50m CEP or even less"

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml 72.136.194.98 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can reach Europe[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm

Certainly Athens and Crete. --Leladax (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They Can Reach India and Greece too[edit]

The article and particularly the map are misleading about the missiles range. They can hit India and parts of Greece. However, this is not properly indicated. See e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm 71.63.76.95 (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed[edit]

21 mach? What does that mean 0_o. And I thought the number is supposed to go after the unit when measuring in Mach. --Jaewonnie (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a speed of 5500 km/h is incompatible with a 2000 km range. 2000 km implies a speed of 3800 m/s or 13680 km/h. 5500 km/h would only give you about 250 km range. Wouter halswijk (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page lock[edit]

I suggest this article be protected from unregistered users. The fact that on the day of its introduction to the Iranian people the missile carrier bore propagandistic signs is indisputable and has been verified. Unregistered individuals continue removing this from the page. Erkenbrack (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this. I just undid the edit of a certain "74.13.32.86" who said "no other source besides that one person from a US thinktank says that and even then it's not verifiable." Firstly there is a cited reference. And secondly, almost all citation on wikiedia only have 1 source, not sure where he/she says no other source. Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wipe off the map"[edit]

As has been pointed out many, many times, and has been ignored equally as many times, the Persian language does not have that particular English idiom. Its a deliberately provocative translation of something that is more like 'remove from the pages of history', which is very different. For example, when President Reagan talked about communism being left 'on the ash heap of history' he wasn't talking about exterminating communists or invading the Soviet Union.

Given this, unless there are strenuous objections, I am going to rephrase that part of the article or possibly remove it entirely. This should be a purely technical article, so there isn't really any place to discuss rhetorical mudslinging between Iran and the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damburger (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly speaking of removing a nation from the pages of history seems like wiping it off the map to me. And what is misleading meaning in the statement "The US can do nothing"? In regards to this being a "purely technical article," I must say that the missile has a history. The events surrounding the unveiling of the weapon are relevant. Reagan's statement stands as a part of history. It has been noted and is not censured. Thus it seems relevant that the missile represents more than its own power. It is, as the Iranians suggested, a device utilized to deter U.S. aggression and to remove Israel from the pages of history. Erkenbrack (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The U.S. can do nothing ... Israel would be wiped from the map." Not nearly enough reliable sources carry this quote. [2] The exact translation remains disputed. Therefore I am removing this. — eon, 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I'm not really up on Iran's current foreign relations, except to know (obviously) that they are strongly opposed to the USA and Israel. For that reason I was curious looking at the map of its range: do they, for example, have no quarrel with Pakistan or India that might lead them to launch missiles from farther east? Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iran does have quarrely with Pakistan, mostly about the border between Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan. Saudi Arabia is another probably target due to the Age old Arab-Aryan rivalries.
To get back to the Pakistan front, Iran has problems with its Balochi region and have accused foreigners of supporting seperatists.[3]
Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction Section[edit]

Shouldn't the majority of the international reaction section be located only in the Great Prophet III article. The article is about the missle; not the single event of the missles' test firings in July. I can see how this event should be mentioned, but over time this single event can not account for a large percentage of the article on the missle. This section is way too long when compared to the rest of the article. Especially considering that it is about international reaction to a test firing, not just the missle itself. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable though it's a lot related to the front page. If the front page doesn't bring most people to the proper article.. --Leladax (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This part of the article is already in the Great Prophet III article. I am moving to erase the international reaction section and consolidate the information to a few sentences under the history section. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you moving the int'l reactions palce to? it has to be somewhere. it is encyclopedic.

Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is already available on the Great Prophet III article page. The Great Prophet III article page is focused on the event, not just the missle. The Shahab-3 page is about a missle; not the Iranian, and I can't stand the use of this phrase, saber rattling. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this proposed change is drastic enough that it needs to go through the regular merge or move discussion or whatever, in my opinion. The proposed moves are very big and while GPIII is a hot link, the shahab page isn't linking to it much right now. And the two subjects are related it enough that we might want to wait a couple weeks before we do this, considering more missiles are being tested daily (is that true?) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounded fair (Edwin Larkin), but if we do move it, we should merge the extra comments from this with the comments on the GPIIILihaas (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strongly disagree with proposal... GPIII is currently much shorter and less "encyclopedic" please look both over... perhaps adding almost all shahab text to GP III. In fact I would almost advocate adding GPIII to shahab instead, and then using a redirect. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exercising patience here is important. But it is obvious that the international reaction section is not relevant to an article that has a focus on an object, not an event. The event should have the international reaction section. I will wait for more discussion before we make any changes. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has no reason to be here. It can be removed/merged immediately. — eon, 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mr: eon,
Is there a reason for this comment? this is a discussion section.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, i forgot to reply to Mr Larkin's comment. Most of the comments on reaction are to do with the July 8/9 test, not the whole series of GPIII tests. They were picked specifically from the next day's response to the test. I agree with you however, a lot of the rhetoric (esp- isr-usa-iran) goes beyond the specific tests, but for these comments listed they pertain to the test from that day.
Also, someone removed the flags from the reactions sections. But if you see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Union#Reactions), the flags are there ont he reaction part. Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[T]his is a discussion section. You have answered your own question. There is a need to stay on-topic. History and tests should link Great Prophet III, which has plenty of scope for the broad reactions being added here. Use {{seealso}}. — eon, 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctored photo[edit]

It should be mentionned that the photo of the recent firings was doctored to hide the failure to launch of one missile; thus the missile launch was intended as a show of force rather than as actual "tests". See this BBC article [4] for more information and pictures.M.Nelson (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M.Nelson on this. If there is no serious reason against including this, I will go ahead and add that section/paragraph to the article. I am in fact quite surprised it is not on here already, and I suppose there might be a good reason for this. Is there? Lucifer (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "doctored" photo didn't have ANYTHING to do with Shahab-3, it was part of an exercise, and another missile failed, not Shahab-3, there is no reason at all to put that in this article. 72.136.194.98 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration not very vaild[edit]

the main illustration (picture) of Shahab-3 is based on the old variant of the Shahab-3 (the Shahab-3A) which only has a 1,300KM range and doesn't even seem to be in production, Shahab-3B is the new and focused variant with a range of 2,100KM+ and is in mass production. The illustration should be changed to a Shahab-3B because Shahab-3B is Iran's most focused and most produced variant of "Shahab-3"

Difference: http://www.spyworld-actu.com/IMG/jpg_shahab-3-launchers.jpg

72.136.194.98 (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Iranian Reaction" is a central theme, not just a reaction[edit]

Not taking sides here, I think various sides act unnecessarily aggressively in the Middle East, but the view of Iran has to be shown most prominently. It's actually absurd that it is shown LAST. In the 'prophet iii' article it isn't shown AT ALL. It short, the fact that the whole event is seen in Iran and probably is in a large part a response to a very recent show-off of power of Israel with a military exercise a few days back, has to be prominently shown. Having those facts in mind, diminishing the view of the very initiator of the incident, Iran, can be considered blatant propaganda. --Leladax (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Image:Shahab 3 missile Iran military parade.jpg[edit]

This picture was removed because it wasn't "purely a picture of a projectile" and with "probably a slogan that says something ambiguous about Israel." What grounds is this for removal? Because it says something offensive about israel that isn't pc? See Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Somehow its still on here then. Lihaas (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muhammad cartoons article deals very specifically with a controversial topic. That is the purpose of the other page. This article is supposed to detail a projectile. We need only one free image of the Shahab-3 on a page this size -- not three or four -- and this photograph should not be picked because it conveys a single, contested point of view. It needs to be neutral photograph. The original one looks fine, but unfortunately it is copyrighted and shortly to be removed. In contrast, the one you keep inserting back into this article is not a photograph of the Shahab-3 per se, but a poor screen capture of a banner on the side of the Shahab-3. I repeat, with the other image about to be deleted, we need a clear picture of the projectile itself, free from POV pushing. Please consider the points above. — eon, 00:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a image of the missile that's free of copyright to be published, this is the very same picture of it. Now with the article is already mentions antio-zionism in here. The picture of the missile is here. But just because it has a banner doesnt make it unworthy of publishing. From the iranian perspecive this is what the government arsenal wanted as they marched down with full international view. From the israeli perspective, well it really doesn't involve israel. it is the government's display for the a missile owned by the iranian government. how are you going to get a 'pov' picture? any picture youre gonna find will be through iran. (likewise for testing from ANY country). Lihaas (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

I agree with the proposal. Dynablaster (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahab-3&oldid=1218801195"