Talk:Ghadir-class submarine

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

Untitled[edit]

Question:
How can this thing launch missiles and rocket torpedoes simultaneously when it has only 2 launch tubes? I also hardly believe that a Missile could be displaced into a so small sub and launched from there.

Answer:
You are right! These claims are ridiculous. This information must have been posted by some silly Iranian schoolboy. It is just wild unsubstantiated claims and not to be taken seriously.

These information are declared by Iranian Admiral on the Iranian state TV. You can find it on YouTube. --VatooVatoo 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this Admiral is just stating the Iranian line of ridiculous propanganga. The claims are just laughable and not to be taken seriously. This sub looks like 1950's technology at best. Rocket propelled torpedoes and missiles - it's a midget how many could it carry. The only thing this sub would be any use for is special forces insertion/extraction. Even then once it's detected its DEAD. It's just a joke along with the rest of the obsolete Iranian fleet. All Iran's neighbours except Iraq even have much more modern and potent fleets.

The Kilo_class_submarine isn't outdated yet, although three of them wouldn't make much of a difference - but in a war where a single casuality is enough to withdraw the whole army and navy and airforce, a Kilo captain with no ideas of post-attack survival surely could inflict a serious blow on a US warship, greatly affecting morale at home. The Chinese-made harpoon-equivalent anti-ship missile systems on the coast in southern Iran surely is no laughing matter either. The question is of course if Iran is willing to use these systems. --Popoi (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I can't post on the original article refuting the claims in this article. The claims in this article are nothing but Iranian government propaganda and should really not be taken seriously by anyone. This submarine is nothing more than a midget and technologically looks like something from the 1950's. The claims of being capable of firing rocket propelled torpedoes and missiles is ludicrous. The vessel doesn't even look big enough to handle full size torpedoes. Certainly they couldn't be loaded thru the hatches. As for stealth technology, well the large cylinder for'd of the sail would make for a very noisy sub when travelling at anything more than 2-3 knots. It's about as stealthy as a rock concert. LOL. Only thing this sub would be useful for is special forces insertion/extraction. This vessel is really just a very poor attempt at submarine building and cannot be taken as a serious military threat. It's more of a novelty than a serious fighting ship!

well if this thing even exists its probablly based on north korean mini sub technology, and the specifications for it would be similar to those of a north korean mini sub, ie two small torpedo tubes/ mine capablitity and special forces insertion as stated above, anything concerning missles and or rocket torpedos is pure nonsense. This thing wouldnt be a threat to anything except perhaps merchant vessels. XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 17:40, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Yes because two insular governments in different parts of the world with wildly differing ideologies are gonna get along just because the Americans hate them. Those damn small corvettes the Israelis use pack more firepower than something several times their size, no propoganda there. And your opinions are not reliable sources so don't start refuting anything.
Well the iranians purchased 4 yugo class subs from the north koreans a few years ago, so it wouldnt really suprise me if the just reverse engineered them and produced a few more under this 'ghadir' label. Nearly all their 'new' technology is just reverse engineneered from older stuff.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these bastards with some supercavitating torps off of Big E's port would really make the day for several thousand American naval men and women, not to mention the cost, hundreds of millions, if not more. Plus if they were to sneak up on something newer than the fabulous big E...billions, because of a couple little torps. Size doesn't matter, especially in the navy, if you think it does, go take a ride on the IJN Yamamoto. And youtube is in no way a reliable source for your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96674&sectionid=351020101) from an Iranian news agency indicates that three new Ghadir class submarines are joining the fleet not the one un-named ship listed as added in June 2009 in the article. This would indicate a fleet size of six, not four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DSwearingen (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sinking of the South Korean warship in 2011 by a North Korean midget submarine demonstrates the Ghadir has some potential. However, larger numbers of midget submarines one third or less the size of the Ghadir may serve Iran better.

The usual number of crew given is 18, but this number seems too high. The 1930s designed Type II German U-boats were twice as big, and only had a crew of 22-24. The Ghadir torpedoes may be loaded backwards into the tubes while in port, so the whole firing process should be largely automated, and there would be no reloads, which means less crew. Automation in general will have increased since the 1930s designs.Azeh (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean import[edit]

I think it should be clarified that these submarines were imported from North Korea and not so much as "domestically produced".

http://blog.marport.com/2009/11/02/iran-buys-north-korean-midget-submarines/

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/21/2010052100698.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.137.179 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It certainly does appear that they are being domestically produced.Azeh (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new[edit]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3931965,00.html --78.2.30.93 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Capability[edit]

Translations and quotes from other languages should be viewed with caution. Perhaps an Iranian official said the Ghadir could fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, and maybe that is what he said, or maybe not. There often time does not seem to be much effort made to translate some languages into standard englsh.

If one torpedo tube was armed with a missile and the other tube armed with a torpedo perhaps both could be fired simultaneously. Although the effectiveness of doing so may be questionable.

In 2011 a North Korean midget submarine is widely reported to have been the system which sank a South Korean corvette using what may have been a wake homing torpedo. So the concept of a midget submarine such as the Ghadir class sinking a warship in restricted waters appears to have been successfully tested.Azeh (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 Ghadir built so far, could be the most Important Midget Submarine ever[edit]

The article says the Ghadir was succeeded by another class of submarine. This does not seem to be the case, since they continue to be produced at a steady pace.

The Ghadir could end up being one of the most important classes of midget submarines ever built. But this could depend on how they perform in a conflict, which is something there may be an answer to soon. The more recent ones would hardly have completed their sea trials if there was a conflict in the next few months, but one may assume their schedule for operational readiness is being moved along as quickly as possible.Azeh (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghadir-class submarine. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ghadir-class submarine. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 12:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ghadir-class submarine. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghadir-class_submarine&oldid=1213107529"