Talk:Fajr-3 ballistic missile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[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)

I've already dealt with this—Iranian TV mixed up the Fajr-3 and Kosar in their news reports, and the information was republished. Unless you can find some real evidence of this missile's existence, please delete this article and move the original Fajr-3 article back to its original name. Please continue the discussion at Talk:Fajr-3 (rocket)#Split articles. —Michael Z. 2006-07-20 22:39 Z

Uhhm, no. Kosar is an anti-ship missile. I have pictures of it. It is a blue missile fired from the back of a small truck containing a total of four rounds. Fajr-3, of which I have a video, is a missile the length of a building. [1] <-- Note that the picture is of some other missile. ArmanJan 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Its picture is shown in the following article: [2] ArmanJan 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That article and dozens of others, dated April 3, are based on the same confused Iranian TV report which globalsecurity.org casts doubt on.[3] The air force man (Hossein Salami) doesn't mention the missile's name in the actual quote. —Michael Z. 2006-07-21 19:22 Z


Kosar missile
Kosar missile

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." [4] Mehrnews "A new land-to-sea missile called Kowsar was also tested successfully on Tuesday." [5] BBC "Friday's test demonstrated the Fajr-3 missile, also designed to escape radar and capable of hitting several targets with multiple warheads." [6] "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." [7] I can site even more sources, but that is not needed. Change it back. ArmanJan 12:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

ArmanJan, stop moving this article to "Fajr-3 MIRV". Even the confused syndicated news articles you keep citing never use that name. —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 15:39 Z

[edit] Wrong Photo

The current photo attached to the article is almost certainly a Shahab-3 MRBM. The performance of the Shahab-3 meshes nicely with all the press reports that are attributed to the Fajr-3; is it possible that the Iranian press don't really know which system was tested? The idea of MIRVs (multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles) on a Shahab-class missile is laughable -- they're probably just talking about a fragmenting warhead or submunitions. By "multiple targets" they probably mean "we can hit fifteen or twenty different buildings near the thing we're aiming at". I think Iran is deliberately muddying the waters, and also mixing in a hearty dose of blarney. 16:00, 27 July 2006 128.244.70.132

Sign your comments. The picture is of the Fajr-3 launch during the Holy prophet wargames. Video's are also available of Iranian military commanders commenting on the missile on Google Video. ArmanJan 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor references

As long as references are being sought, the following are misleading:

The missile can avoid radar detection and has multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, military chiefs said. [8][9]

"Military chiefs" are only cited in the first article about a different weapon; and the article only mentions the Fajr-3 in passing. The second article doesn't even mention Fajr-3 or its capabilities at all, just Shahab-II. —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 17:15 Z

The second article is indeed about Shahab II. I will remove that one. ArmanJan 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The IRGC unveiled the missile during the Holy Prophet wargames on 3 April 2006, announcing "the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced." [10]

The quotation is not from the cited article, which talks about the Kowsar anti-ship missile, and doesn't even mention Fajr-3 or ballistic missiles. —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 17:15 Z

Yes it does, here is a copy/paste from the article: "On Friday, Iran tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes." You obviously need glasses. ArmanJan 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd, I could swear I even searched the page for "Fajr", to make sure. Problem with my brain rather than my eyes, I suppose. Anyway, the quotation is not from the article Fox news is displaying at that URL right now. —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 20:10 Z
Nope, its there. Its just your brain that is not working. See link for screenshot. Screenshot ArmanJan 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The quotation is the text between the quotation marks: "the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced." That text is not in the article cited after the quotation.
The only thing similar is the quote of a Pentagon official: "the Iranians have also been known to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities". —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 00:03 Z

There you go, I added two extra sources. ArmanJan 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy revert

ArmanJan, if you disagree with a fact in my edit, please don't revert all of my improvements. According to your sources, the missile's range was announced on Iranian state TV, a state enterprise, as 1250 miles or 2000 km. If you want to change that to "estimated 2000-3000 km", then please cite a source that disagrees with the ones you've already provided.

Even if you can actually count three hits in the 1/3-second video clip, that doesn't mean the missile has only three warheads. Is there any more info than the video? —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 20:42 Z

In your edit summary you wrote:

Closest we have is Iran's TV report that it may be similar to the latest Shahab-3(D), which makes it 3000km.

But you also wrote that the range depends on the warhead, and Fajr-3 is supposed to have a new multiple warhead, so this is no proof—at best the assumption original research, unless military analysts will make the same statement. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 20:53 Z

1. The military commander specifically mentions that the missile has three warheads.
2. "My source" said the following "But state-run television described the weapon as “ballistic” – suggesting it is of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket" the rest -> ", which can travel 1,250 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East." is what the article writer added. Shahab-3A has a range of 1300km, Shahab3B has a range of 2100km, Shahab-3D has a range of 3000km, and that is the current Shahab-3 missile.
3. The reason I added such a wide range of 2000-3000 was to give the range from the 3B model to the 3D model, and not specifically that of 3D. Comprende?
4. I did not write that its range depends on the warhead, that is someone elses addition. However, it is of course very logical that it depends on the warhead weight, as with any other missile.
5. I would appreciate it if you do not remove everything on the page everytime, including all the sources.
ArmanJan 20:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You are the one who continues to revert my complete edit of the article, referring only to a fact or two in your edit summary—sorry, but I won't tolerate that. I've tried to respond to new facts as you present them by updating the article, but you just wholesale revert, and now cry vandalism in your latest edit summary.
You must cite verifiable sources. You can't make up your own estimate of 2000–3000 kilometres, when publish sources say 1250 miles (2000 km)—that's original research. If reports are confused, then relay the details: that news reports convey a figure of 1250 miles, but Iranian television alluded to the range of the Shahab rockets, and cite the sources for their ranges, allowing a reader to understand how the figures are derived. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 23:11 Z

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fajr-3.jpg

Image:Fajr-3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)