Talk:Fajr-3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

This article has been automatically rated as Stub-Class by the Military history WikiProject because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove |auto=yes from the {{WPMILHIST}} template above. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the |class= parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} template above and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents 1 Confusion 2 THIRD GENERATION KATUSHA. 3 Hezbollah 4 Split articles 5 roflmao at so called "proof"

[edit] Confusion

FAS has this missile listed as a tactical rocket with a range of 45 kilometers, but I question the accuracy of that because everyone else (news and speculation only, WHAT EXCELLENT SOURCES HA HA!) claims that it is an MRBM, giving at a range of 1500~2000km. It would be nice to see more information on this new stealth missile. I'm also interested in knowing where that photo came from. Oceanhahn 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fajr-3 rocket you talk of comes from a series of Iranian artillery rockets. However, Fajr-3 MIRV is something which has been recently made. It is indeed a MIRV missile with a range of ~2000km (its range is not officially announced, but this is what many sites say). I found a video where you can see its launch. There are also some other video's floating online where you can see its multiple warheads hitting their targets. Fas is not a good source for any information on the Iranian military. You can find more information about the Fajr-3 on the BBC website. Disputed sign will be removed. User:ArmanJan

I suggest this article by split and disambiguation be used. These are two entirely separate weapon systems, and while information on both is rare and both would probably have stub status for a while, there is no reason for them to be in the same page in the mean time, other to make bulk.

--Cerejota 10:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the sentence "Reactions of most countries where very concerned, because of Iran's aggressive steps towards its nuclear program." really appropriate? From what i know iran has not violated the nuclear non proliferation treaty. So i dont see how its nuclear development can be said to be aggessive. Capitalistpiglet 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fajr-3 Artillery Rocket is making a major impact on Current events, and it may be best to split it into two so that people don't get very confused by this. Also I added some infomation that may indicate that the Fajr-3 rocket was produced in 1990.

Does anyone know what this is? The article seems to be conflating a 240mm artillery rocket with a large ballistic missile. One source of confusion seems to be an earlier Iranian report of a test of a rocket torpedo at the same time as an artillery rocket.[1][2] Even fas.org completely confuses the two.[3]

This BBC article, "Israel's Hezbollah headache", seems to have a little info, but is there more? —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 19:25 Z

Reading the BBC articles I linked to above more carefully, it seems that they mix up Iranian television announcements of three different tests.

1. Friday, March 31, 2006: Fajr-3 ('victory'): "conventional missile capable of being equipped with multiple warheads", "also designed to escape radar" (variable trajectory to defeat counterbattery radar?). This AP report "Iran says test-fire of missile able to avoid radar a success", and others filed at the same time, clearly refer to a 1,200-mi range ballistic missile. Also clearly not what Hezbollah has been firing at Israel.
2. Sunday, April 2, 2006: Hoot ('whale') high-speed rocket torpedo, or underwater anti-ship/anti-submarine missile.
3. A day or two later: "The missile was an "ultra-horizon" weapon..." (hyperbole for 45-km range?) "...that could be fired from all types of military vehicles, the television report said", "...the first in the world to test a missile that needed no over-the-horizon-targeting (OTHT) instrument to find its target" (more hyperbole?). The photo of this missile looks like it could be a multiple-launch rocket.

—Michael Z. 2006-07-17 19:51 Z

Thanks to user:Kirill Lokshin, it appears that Iranian TV might have applied the wrong name to the ballistic missile; it may be called the Kosar.[4] For now, I will move that description the Kosar article, which is lacking any text. Please update if any more information comes to light. —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 22:25 Z

done. —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 23:00 Z

[edit] THIRD GENERATION KATUSHA.

IT WAS DEVELOPED IN KOREA...GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.35.4 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a reference supporting your statement? I don't know the specifics of this weapon, but North Korea acquired much of their military technology from the Soviet Union. —Michael Z. 2006-07-18 00:10 Z

[edit] Hezbollah

...the Fajr-3 rocket proved as a useful weapon for Hezbollah fighters..

"Useful"? "Fighters"? These are people who lob high explosives from long range in the general direction of population centres. Please don't mistake this for some sort of military action or battle. —Michael Z. 2006-07-20 03:10 Z

I was the one that added that line.

I am trying to keep it content nutural.

The Fajr-3 rocket proved as a useful weapon for Hezbollah Guerillas.. is another option.

The Fajr-3 has proved useful to hezbollah, as this extends the range of where they can strike from a couple of border towns to around 1/3 of the state of Israel.

Outside of a political discussion of hezbollah and israel actions in the current conflict, the Fajr-3 missile is useful in that it makes Hezbollah fighters/Guerillas/terrorists/miltants more dangerous.

User Drgong

I have difficulty with evaluating the rocket as "useful" in this context, because saying that implies some sort of military objectives and an assessment of their success or failure. Lobbing explosives at population centres is just terrorism. I don't even know if "guerilla" is a suitable label or not. But that whole discussion doesn't belong in this article anyway.

Let's just stick to the facts that they were shooting the rockets at their chosen targets, at longer ranges than they were able to previously. I think the current text communicates the pertinent facts. —Michael Z. 2006-07-20 16:23 Z

I say the ablity to retaliate 30km deep into a nation by rocket attack is a useful ablity.

That is more general, or perhaps vague, than what is written above. I still refuse to let this article consider the random killing of civilians at a distance to be considered "utility". —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 20:33 Z

[edit] Split articles

Okay, as previously suggested I split the articles into the main (MIRV) article and the artillery rocket. ArmanJan 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, you'll see that I already removed the information about the so-called "Fajr-3 MIRV", because it seems to be the result of mistaken news reports mixing up the Fajr-3 artillery rocket with the Kosar missile. Do you have any proof of the Fajr-3 MIRV's or Fajr-3 ballistic missile's existence? If not, please move this article back to its proper name, and delete the new one.

References:

• Iran: Missiles at fas.org
• Iranian missiles at sarbaz.org

—Michael Z. 2006-07-20 22:37 Z

The links you use are old. That is because the Fajr-3 artillery rocket is an old system. However, Fajr-3 MIRV is from 2006. FAS, Globalsecurity, are sites that barely get updated with very old information. See news links:

• Iran Says New Missile Test Successful
• Iran tests second new torpedo in Persian Gulf
• Iran claims a successful test: A missile that can avoid radar
  

ArmanJan 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

These are all news media links. Their stories are based on a single confused initial announcement on Iranian television, which talked about two or three different rockets, whose writer made a mistake, which may have been translated poorly, and which was never clarified. Is there a single reference which refers to the Fajr-3 ballistic missile? Read this globalsecurity story of the same date, which tries to clarify. Here's what we know

• Fajr-3 is an Iranian Katyusha-style artillery rocket, with better range than the ubiquitous BM-21.
• Fajr-3 is used by Hezbollah, and is an important factor in the current news.

For this reason, the artillery rocket article should be moved back to its proper name Fajr-3. Here's what we know about the so-called "Fajr-3 MIRV"

• It was mentioned in a single Iraqi television report at the beginning of April, along with a rocket-propelled marine torpedo. The report was so confused, that at least several syndicated news reports conflated the two very different weapons.
• Global Security.org stated that this report may have been mistaken about the name of the missile.
• Not much else.

You're jumping to too many conclusions, without any primary sources or expert opinions; just syndicated news reports. Moving articles around based on your assumptions, without responding to the discussion already on the page, is creating unnecessary work, and putting information which is suspect in front of interested readers. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 19:03 Z

Here's another side-splitter by no less than the Washington Post: Hezbollah Rockets Hit UN Observation Post. They show a photo of a four-storey tall ballistic missile, with the caption "In this photograph released April 3, 2006 by the Islamic Republic News Agency, the test firing of a Fajr-3 missile by Iran in the Persian Gulf April 1, 2006 is seen. A third-generation Katyusha, the Fajr-3 is believed to have been used by Hezbollah to strike the Israli port city of Haifa. (AP Photo/IRNA) (AP)"

Do you now believe that the news media is talking out of its ass, and you need a better reference for the so-called "Fajr-3 ballistic missile"? It would be funny if they weren't spreading such blatant misinformation about a current event where innocent people are losing lives. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 19:27 Z

You have such an arogant tone. Well, as an Iranian I can tell you that you are actually mistaken. I purposely did not show you links from Iranian news. There are some 6 missile, ships and aircraft called Fajr-X. Here is list of Tel aviv university of Iran's missiles. It mentions Fajr-3 as SSM, and also as other things. However, the most important one is the MIRV missile, which is Iran's latest achievement. Here is the list: [5] now change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmanJan (talk • contribs) .

Thank you, this is getting closer to a verifiable source, but it isn't one. Funny that Google finds the full 27-page version of your partial PDF document, at Tel Aviv University, [6] with the same date at the bottom of each page but no mention of the Fajr-3 SSM. Perhaps someone is playing a joke on you? How or where did you find this document? —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 22:56 Z

Well, here you go. Proof from your favourite news source (FOX News): "On Tuesday, Iran tested a new surface-to-sea radar-avoiding missile that is equipped with remote-control and searching systems, state TV reported. It said the new missile, called Kowsar, was a medium-range weapon that Iran had the capability to mass-produce." then further down: "On Friday, Iran tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads." [7] Mehrnews "A new land-to-sea missile called Kowsar was also tested successfully on Tuesday." [8] BBC "Friday's test demonstrated the Fajr-3 missile, also designed to escape radar and capable of hitting several targets with multiple warheads." [9] "On Friday, the first day of the war games, Iran successfully test-fired the Fajr-3 missile, which can avoid radars and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads." [10] I can site even more sources, but that is not needed. Change it back. ArmanJan 12:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Armanjan, you haven't presented a single source mentioning the Fajr-3 rocket which isn't either

1. a news item which misconstrues the confused April 2 Iranian television announcement
2. your poorly-executed counterfeit of the Tel Aviv University document

—Michael Z. 2006-07-22 15:34 Z

[edit] roflmao at so called "proof"

This "The US-based military affairs website globalsecurity.org describes the Fajr-3 as a 240 mm artillery rocket with a 40km range, one of a group of light rockets Iran has developed mainly for tactical use on the battlefield. However, it also says Iran has been working on another missile, called the Kosar, that would be undetectable by radar and designed to sink ships in the Gulf." is supposed to be your proof that Fajr-3 ballistic missile is confused with Kowsar land-to-sea missile? This is not proof of your claim, as I have shown you multiple sources (and added them) that Fajr-3 ballistic missile is a land-to-land multiple warhead ballistic missile. ArmanJan 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive discussion. Why did you remove the references about the Korean origin of these rockets?

And if you're so concerned with verifiable "proof", then why do you refuse to reveal how or where you acquired the forged "Tel Aviv University" PDF? —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 20:14 Z

Unless you provide a citation from a source that says there was confusion about the name (anything that substantiates your absurd claim), you are just making your own assumptions without proof. All you did now was show a link that also mentions the Kowsar, and yes it is true.. the kowsar is a missile that can avoid radar and it is an anti-ship missile, but no where in your article does it mention Fajr-3 ballistic missile. I have not forged anything, keep your accusations to yourself please. ArmanJan 23:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused you of anything. But the PDF file you introduced is clearly an altered version of the longer one from the Tel Aviv University site, no? It just happened to have a couple of lines added which supported the point you were making—bad luck that you stumbled on it. If you can explain how or where you acquired it, perhaps we can all learn how to avoid being similarly fooled, and avoid citing false documents. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 00:03 Z

Maybe if you were not so rude and aggressive, people would not mild explaining things to you. ArmanJan 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)