Talk:IRIS Jamaran (76)

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

Jamaran Mowj / Moudge Class Corvette / light frigate[edit]

Jane's Information Group, one of the world's most renowned military analysis firms has clearly identified this ship as a frigate based on the Alvand class / Vosper Mark V. [1].

globalsecurity.org identifies the ship as a Mowj class corvette / frigate [2].

It is obvious to any military analyst that this ship has been incorrectly described as a destroyer / guided missile destroyer in press reports and that some press reports contain other major errors, such as the tonnage claimed to be 14,000 tons instead of 1,400 tons.

Furthermore it is obvious that this ship is a corvette / light frigate.

There is more than enough evidence in online and printed sources to verify these statements as fact.

The Alvand class / Vosper Mark V ships that the Jamaran is a near identical copy of can be found in these printed sources Pages 194 and 24 respectively. "Jane's Warship Recognition Guide by Anthony J. Watts ISBN 0-06-084992-4 PAGE 194" and "Fighting Ships of the World by Robert Jackson & Steve Crawford ISBN 1-904687-01-6 PAGE 24"

This is clearly verifiable information from published sources.

National security geek (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaran-Moudge[edit]

there have been many claims on the internet that these 2 are the same ship, if anyone here can find a proper source that states this, please let me know. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no-one has found anything on it yet... Well I'll be doing some research again soon, so well see if I can find a source that proves it. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=118982&sectionid=351020101

seems to state clearly that the Jamaran is a Moudge class ship.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type of ship and original research content[edit]

Half of this article is nonsense talk about it being a destroyer or frigate. Well, since there actually is no such clear technical distinction between frigates and destroyers anymore, what does it matter other than Iran trying to push up the reputation of whatever this ship is supposed to be? Heck, they could call it a battlecruiser and it would not matter. 123.208.42.68 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave a comment about this, but I'll just reiterate the above statements...3/4 of this article is redundant discussion about the vessel's class. 98.27.7.29 (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article reads like an essay, as someone said before. Much of its content should be on this talk page, here and not in the article itself. Besides, 'destroyer' is not a category of ship in terms of size or displacement. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Fast naval vessel used to protect other ships. The term [destroyer] was first applied to vessels built in the 1890s to protect battleships from torpedo boats. By World War I destroyers were often sent ahead of the battle fleet to scout for the enemy, beat back its destroyers with cannon fire, and then launch torpedoes against its battleships and cruisers. When the submarine became the main torpedo-launching vessel, destroyers armed with depth charges protected convoys and battle fleets against submarine attack. In World War II, with the addition of radar and antiaircraft guns, its escort role included air defense. Modern destroyers are run by a crew of about 300 and equipped with surface-to-air missiles, antiship missiles, and one or two big guns. Many carry submarine-hunting helicopters, and some carry cruise missiles.

and from Wikipedia on the same subject:

Initially 300 tons [destroyer] was a good size, but by the start of the First World War 1000 tons was not unusual.

All other sources (see here) say basically the same.

PressTV and Iranian military are describing Jamaran as a "frigate type of ship". That is good enough for me.

There is also original research that needs to be removed such as "guesses" made by WP-editors (seeWP:V). 69.116.236.229 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Would you call a Dinghy an aircraft carrier? There is a lot of inaccurate information flying in all directions. How did this vessel end up with RIM-66 missiles and an SH-3 Sea King helicopter without any reliable sources and citations? The SH-3's rotor diameter is nearly 20m while the helipad itself is roughly 20m long and 10-11m wide. Has anyone produced any evidence this vessel has RIM-66 missiles and can accommodate an SH-3 helicopter?

Calling a vessel which is a domestically produced copy of the Alvand class frigate based on the Vosper Mark V frigate, a guided missile destroyer is quite a stretch. The MEKO 140 corvettes of the Argentine Navy are larger than this ship. Technically the proper designation for this vessel is corvette, light frigate or light guided missile frigate.

National security geek (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The helicopter landing pad is approximately ~25 meters long, enough to introduce a SH-3 or a Bell 214. I base my fact only with one picture from FARS new agency [3]. De Grasse (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, i can change easily my illustration with a Bell 214...because right now is only speculation from one picture De Grasse (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]



The helipad is almost exactly 20m in length or 21% of the ship's overall length. If it was 25m it would have to be 27% of the ship's overall length which doesn't compute. The youtube video [4] shows a Bell 214 approaching the Jamaran but not actually landing on the pad. Landing on a ship that is pitching and rolling is difficult even in ideal weather conditions, with a pad this small a landing would be even more difficult and dangerous. It's unlikely the ship can routinely operate a Bell 214 from the pad, meaning safely launch and retrieve while underway, let alone anything larger such as the SH-3.

The ship can probably refuel a Bell 214 or perhaps an SH-3 while underway without landing on the pad.

Does anyone have any solid information on the SAMs?

National security geek (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PressTV article shows a photo which there are two containers between the funnel and the aft 'Y' gun. Those are the suspected SM-1/RIM-66 box launchers from the Allen Summer/Babar destroyers. But there is an absence of fire control radars so I am unsure how it would function as a SAM.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koxinga CDF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks, that is very intriguing. If that is the case those missiles must be nearly 40 years old since the last confirmed refit of the Babr class destroyers was done in 1972 and 1973 respectively at the time of sale. The SM-1 missiles have limited anti-ship capabilities but without fire control they must be useless. A surface radar, an air search radar and an unidentified radar were visible.

National security geek (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without further details, it is hard to determine the full sensor suite. But the antenna for the surface search radar appears to be a Plessey AWS-1 radar which came with the Vosper corvettes. Off topic, I thought that the dates were wrong. 19th Feb should be the commissioning date rather than launch date (which would be 2007) since the identity had been established that this was indeed the Mowj.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! It sure looks like they recycled old parts from the Vosper ships. Some of those parts date back to the 1950s and 1960s since the Vosper ships were completed in 1968 and 1969.

National security geek (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



If the ship really is equipped with SM-1 / RIM-66 missiles as claimed, it would require a Fire-control radar as you mentioned before. This would have to be an AN/SPG-51 or AN/SPG-55 or AN/SPG-60 or AN/SPG-62 or a similar Fire-control radar / illuminator. Since the Allen M. Sumner class destroyers were purchased in 1972 and 1973 they would be far more likely to have the older AN/SPG-51 or an equivalent Fire-control radar available for export around that time.

The AN/SPG-60 was used on the Virginia class cruisers circa 1972, Spruance class destroyers circa 1975 and the AN/SPG-62 on Ticonderoga class ships circa 1980.

Does anyone have any quality pictures, video or reliable sources showing the Babr class / Allen M. Sumner class destroyer configuration post refit in 1972/1973 after the sale to Iran? Originally the Allen M. Sumner class destroyers had no missiles and no missile illuminators / missile Fire-control radar.

In any case the Jamaran Mowj class corvette has no visible Fire-control radar that would be suitable for the SM-1 / RIM-66 missiles. Certainly there is no such radar visible aft where the box launchers for the SAMs are believed to be.

There appears to be a small radar atop the bridge, presumably this is a short range Fire-control radar for the 76mm DP Gun, this isn't likely to be suitable for SAMs.


National security geek (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Thank you for the ID Koxinga CDF, you were quite correct about the radar. It's capable of both air and surface search ( had originally thought it was air search only ). It's between the C-802 launchers and the funnel.

Added under sensors.

Confirmed VID on google books - multiple sources.

National security geek (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran says "Jamaran-2" launched in the Caspian ....[edit]

Did "Jamaran" sink or something? Or are they just simplifying their designations? Is this basically the same class of ship? http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/17/report-iran-launches-destroyer-in-caspian-sea/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jamaranmowjclassmult/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Iranian frigate Jamaran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iranian frigate Jamaran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IRIS_Jamaran_(76)&oldid=1207738519"