Iran's new weapon - Fajr 27

[MOO]

Iran to mass produce new artillery gun

First Published 2006-09-27, Last Updated 2006-09-27 16:23:36 2 :bat:

Marine weapon 'Fajr 27' fires 85 76-millimeter shells a minute, hits surface and aerial targets.

TEHRAN - Iran on Wednesday announced it has started mass production of a marine artillery gun, the Fajr 27, which it said is capable of firing 85 76-millimeter shells a minute.

"The Fajr 27 addresses our naval forces' needs and is capable of hitting surface as well as aerial targets. Six years of work by our military specialists have borne fruit," Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said.

"This weapon is capable of quickly reacting to any incoming aerial and surface attacks, has the capability to fire 85 rounds of 76 millimeter shells a minute and can be controlled automatically," he added on state television.

He added that the cannon, which can be mounted on a ship or dry land, has a range of 17 kilometers (10.5 miles).

Najjar said at the unveiling of the weapon's mass production plant that since 54 countries have this kind of artillery, its mass production will open up export markets for Iran.

The announcement is the latest of a string of military breakthroughs claimed by Iran over the past month and comes at a time of mounting tension with the West over the country's nuclear program.

In early September, Iran announced that it has developed a new war plane - named the "Azarakhsh" (Lightning) - which it describes as similar to the American F-5.

It also developed a new war plane named "Saegheh" (Thunder), it claims is similar to the American F-18 fighter jet. Experts say that the fuselage is that of a F-5 but the tail is modeled after F-18.

It also announced that it had successfully tested a 2,000-pound (about 900 kilogram) guided bomb named Ghased, or "Messenger".

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=17626

 

[MOO]

Recent Video - Fajr 27 Naval Gun
-Hadi

 

[waz]

They were better of investing in missile tech that now adorns the decks of all surface combatants now, not guns that have since been all but phased out.

 

[sigatoka]

They were better of investing in missile tech that now adorns the decks of all surface combatants now, not guns that have since been all but phased out.

What do you mean? Nearly all new Western ships have at least one naval gun that is used for land bombardment. Against land targets missiles (unless they have U.S. quality guidance) are nearly useless. The use of naval guns against air and ships is a secondary role to the land attack.

 

[waz]

What do you mean? Nearly all new Western ships have at least one naval gun that is used for land bombardment. Against land targets missiles (unless they have U.S. quality guidance) are nearly useless. The use of naval guns against air and ships is a secondary role to the land attack.

I should have been clearer in terms of the Iranian perspective how close do you think they will be able to come to any "enemy" [US, Israel] coastline? I can tell you not very far.....Land bombardment is far more effective by use of missiles but as you said yourself without advanced guidance there is no point.

What they should of done is made inroads to anti ship missile technology which will serve them far better especially with regards to the threat they face in Persian gulf.

But nether the less I’m not bashing their achievement as I can see good applications of the gun in a field scenario I was just questioning it’s potency in modern Naval warfare and in view of the potential adversaries such as the US Navy.

 

[sigatoka]

1. I should have been clearer in terms of the Iranian perspective how close do you think they will be able to come to any "enemy" [US, Israel] coastline? I can tell you not very far.....

2. What they should of done is made inroads to anti ship missile technology which will serve them far better especially with regards to the threat they face in Persian gulf.

1. All of Iran's aircraft will be destroyed on the ground by tomahawk's, stealth bombers, F-15's and F-18's, does that mean they shouldnt have airforce? No, it means they should have an airforce but not as big as they would have if no U.S. threat.

For e.g. Saudi has much bigger airforce (dollars of planes) than Iran coz of no threat from U.S.

2. Its a single gun on a ship, most of weaponry and development is still on anti-ship missiles. Soldiers still carry pocket knives in battle.