This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shahab-3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Shahab-3 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 July 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
New CEP estimates were sourced and unsourced, older references were removed. Erkenbrack ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Guess I was late on this comment by about 5 minutes - please disregard. Big61bethel ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)big61bethel
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm
Certainly Athens and Crete. -- Leladax ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lihaas ( talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree with the proposal. Dynablaster ( talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shahab-3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Shahab-3 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 July 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
New CEP estimates were sourced and unsourced, older references were removed. Erkenbrack ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
Guess I was late on this comment by about 5 minutes - please disregard. Big61bethel ( talk) 16:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)big61bethel
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)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7496765.stm
Certainly Athens and Crete. -- Leladax ( talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lihaas ( talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I agree with the proposal. Dynablaster ( talk) 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)