Jump to content

Talk:Storm Shadow: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
solid class C, may even be B
OneClickArchived "Launch platform in Ukraine" to Talk:Storm Shadow/Archive 1
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
}}
}}
}}
}}
{{Archives}}

==Naming and nationality==
The "Anglo" in "Anglo-French" ''as used in this article'' refers to the UK not England, so I'm changing it accordingly -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 02:15, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it be UK-French? Anglo by its very nature implies England. [[User:RickK|RickK]] 02:17, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

According to http://acp.gn.apc.org/aerospace/aero_review.html, at least parts of Storm Shadow are built in Scotland. -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 02:46, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:My little contribution to the naming debate, the term "Franco-British" is used in MBDA documentation (although it refers to a procurement summit). I have trouble understanding why products designed by multinational companies should have a nationality, it's not like they needed a passport to cross a border...[[User:Corentinoger|Corentinoger]] ([[User talk:Corentinoger|talk]]) 10:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Some clarification. Storm Shadow / Scalp is first and foremost a French weapon. It was entirely designed and developed in France and is based heavily on the Matra Apache weapon.
Scalp/EG is a significantly enhanced Apache cruise missile designed to a French Air Force requirement. After government approval, it was then submitted for a UK cruise missile requirement (CASOM). The British contributed the BROACH warhead for their Storm Shadow missiles; the Scalp EG missile uses a French design. Most of the Storm Shadow missile are made in the UK--per contractual obligations (industrial offset). <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:4.233.131.138|4.233.131.138]] ([[User talk:4.233.131.138|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/4.233.131.138|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 20 January 2006

:What rot. MBDA in Stevenage (which is in the UK, not France) had a large office building full of engineers working full time for several years on it. Then of course there's the export derivative. You are correct that SS/EG is a DERIVATIVE of a French weapon (APACHE), however the link between Apache and SS/EG is visual only. Every subsystem inside is redesigned. SS has BROACH, APACHE has KRISS. Totally different sort of lethal package. Different mission set altogether. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/81.86.138.193|81.86.138.193]] ([[User talk:81.86.138.193|talk]]) 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

The missile is the BAe version (with some UK enhancements) of the French Matra APACHE/SCALP missile and entered service in late 2002. Source: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/projects/raq3f549e5ccceb2
Proof of mimimal BAe involvement: It works; it's on budget and it was delivered on schedule. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.192.254.176|71.192.254.176]] ([[User talk:71.192.254.176|talk]]) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Except that the seeker, warhead, G&C computer, navigation system, engine, actuators and airframe are different. Only the external shape of the airframe is in fact common. It was sold as an evolution of an existing design but is in fact completely different. And it was developed by MBDA not BAE Systems. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Given what the sources says, it seems Scalp/Storm Shadow are two missile-systems (Mirage/Rafaele and Tornado/Eurofighter) with a lot of shared main components rather than one issile with two names. [[User:BP OMowe|BP OMowe]] ([[User talk:BP OMowe|talk]]) 10:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

==Missile de Croisière Naval==
The MdCN should have it's own Wikipedia entry.
There are some significant alterations which differentiate it from the Storm Shadow/Scalp EG cruise missile.
Based on a French Naval requirement, the MdCN is rocket boosted to cruise speed, it uses a different variant of the powerplant (Microturbo TR50 vs TR40), MdCN air intake is retractable (as opposed to fixed for Storm Shadow/Scalp EG), it features a different guidance system, and a completely different warhead.
To allow for vertical shipboard launch or underwater launch by submarine (Storm Shadow/Scalp EG is air launched only), the fuselage dimensions were significantly altered.
The end result is a missile with a substantially longer range (1000 KM for submarine launch, 1400 KM for shipboard launch).
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/apache-ap/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.144.134.26|12.144.134.26]] ([[User talk:12.144.134.26#top|talk]]) 17:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Cost==
Each one costs about 1 million pounds. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:E cetinel|E cetinel]] ([[User talk:E cetinel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/E cetinel|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> 17 February 2006

== Bunt? ==

The article claims that the final manouver before target acquisition is called a "bunt". But a bunt - as far as I can find - is a '''negative''' G manouver... that is to say a pitch downwards and not upwards. Can this please be reworded or shown a source that the manouver is indeed called a "bunt". --[[User:J-Star|J-Star]] 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well I didn't add it but I remember reading this term in the RAF Magazine. I would welcome more expert opinion but let me hazard a guess - The missile flies low and then for its attack it climbs rapidly for a final dive onto its target, perhaps the negative G refers to the transition from rapid climb to rapid dive. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:: In the terminal phase, Storm Shadow pulls up, climbs to altitude and then performs a bunt to dive onto the target. So the article is in fact correct. [[User:Justin A Kuntz|Justin A Kuntz]] 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

== Harrier ==

I'm certian that the Harrier GR7/9 is not cleared to use the Storm Shadow, so will remove the reference to this, if no one has any objection.
[[User:Ttdjp|Ttdjp]] 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
: You're correct MBDA's own page lists the aircraft types and Harrier isn't there. [[User:Justin A Kuntz|Justin A Kuntz]] 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrier GR9 WAS slated for StormShadow integration but concerns over weight issues of bringing an unfired weapon back aboard a carrier in a Vertical landing prompted the deletion of the integration from the 'to do' list. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Phlyer|Phlyer]] ([[User talk:Phlyer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Phlyer|contribs]]) 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Tomahawk ==

Note sure this section is completely correct

''This semi-autonomous flight and dual-stage warhead make the missile unique among cruise missiles. ... but lacks the target-acquisition ....''

Depending on the version Tomahawk has DSMAC which confers an ATR capability in the terminal phase. Also JASSM has a terminal seeker capability. [[User:Justin A Kuntz|Justin A Kuntz]] 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Unique among cruise missiles" isn't accurate at all. The Taurus missile has a similar dual-stage breaching warhead called Mephisto and it autonavigates in similar fashion, including a climb and bunt maneuver. They are direct competitors so I would expect it. The JASSM doesn't do the bunt and doesn't have a dual-stage warhead, but otherwise is very similar. I'm going to remove that paragraph.

:I think you'll find JASSM does have a bunt capability for certain targets. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow: A different weapon?==

I 've heard that the French missiles are only carried by Rafale/Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2. Is this true? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.251.240.62|195.251.240.62]] ([[User talk:195.251.240.62|talk]]) 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Storm Shadow (GI Joe) ==

Why does 'Storm Shadow' come to this article instead of the more popular GI Joe character who was an established character decades before this missle? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:IrwinRShyster|IrwinRShyster]] ([[User talk:IrwinRShyster|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/IrwinRShyster|contribs]]) 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Please define more popular, anyway rather than remove the artical (which is what your edits did). You could have moved the page, and the talk page, to Storm Shadow (missile) and then created a Disambiguation page for both [[User:Bihco|Bihco]] ([[User talk:Bihco|talk]]) 08:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

== Diameter? ==
The Characteristics section 1st paragraph mentions a diameter of 1m, which on examination of the photo of the missile in RAF musem appears broadly consistent with the quoted wingspan of 3m. But the Specifications box at right of page lists diameter as 0.166m - not consistent (although exactly the same as the diameter spec on the MBDA Systems product page <http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=120&page_id=115> ) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.20.20.129|202.20.20.129]] ([[User talk:202.20.20.129|talk]]) 03:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Yeah the diameter of 0.48m is almost certainly wrong based on the following picture. For reference a GBU-24 in the same shot is 460mm diameter and a KEPD 350 is quoted at >1000mm diameter http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-J-O3CFyYUvU/Upig-0mgBVI/AAAAAAAACQA/mMM5mpxPBRM/s1600/weaponfoldout.jpg:

== Range? ==

I'm a bit puzzled by the stated range, it says "300+nm (560+km)" in the infobox, and "approximately 250 kilometres (155 mi)" in the main text.
On MBDA web site, the datasheet says "in excess of 250km"
http://www.mbda-systems.com/products/air-dominance/storm-shadow-scalp/30/
I went through the references and I only found references to the 250km+ range, same with the French language version of the article.

I suppose the differences might come from several configurations optimizing for range or for payload, I can't find anything about this anywhere.
Could anyone more knowledgeable clarify? Otherwise the more conservative "250km+" should be used.
[[User:Corentinoger|Corentinoger]] ([[User talk:Corentinoger|talk]]) 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

:300nm is from the RAF website. 250km is likely for the export variant, but obviously range depends on flight profile (altitude throughout flight). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:2590:D701:C815:9CB9:2AF7:6E3B|2A00:23C5:2590:D701:C815:9CB9:2AF7:6E3B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:2590:D701:C815:9CB9:2AF7:6E3B#top|talk]]) 19:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I can't seem to find this information on the RAF Website, in fact what I did find on the RAF Website supports the 250KM range statement/claim.
::https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/units/air-historical-branch/post-coldwar-studies/the-royal-air-force-and-uk-air-power-in-operation-telic-iraq-2003/
::Page 56 and to quote:
::"They were to conduct missions with the RAF’s new conventionally armed, long range (250 km), stand-off, precision air-to-ground missile, known as Storm Shadow." [[Special:Contributions/188.172.153.164|188.172.153.164]] ([[User talk:188.172.153.164|talk]]) 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:I agree and I will edit this as no one was able to deliver a reliable source for the long range. [[User:NedFlandersThe2nd|NedFlandersThe2nd]] ([[User talk:NedFlandersThe2nd|talk]]) 11:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Storm Shadow]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=713356359 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/stormshadow.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 15:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

== Length? ==

"has a maximum body diameter of 48 centimetres (19 in) and a wingspan of 3 metres (120 in)."

Does it not have a length?
Or is this a glaring omission indicative of the editorial quality of an anyone's-an-editor encyclopaedia substitute? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.175.56.45|86.175.56.45]] ([[User talk:86.175.56.45#top|talk]]) </small>

:No, it was intentionally left out to draw sarcastic drive-by comments. Glad we succeeded. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 07:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

== Egypt's Scalp sale ==

A source from defense-news<ref>https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/08/01/a-jet-sale-to-egypt-is-being-blocked-by-a-us-regulation-and-france-is-over-it/</ref> date August 1, 2018 states that the Scalp sale to Egypt was blocked by the US through ITAR, and another source from defense-world<ref>https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22882/France_Receives_US_OK_for_Export_of_Scalp_Missiles_to_Egypt#.YBMlvOgzaUk</ref> date July 9, 2018 states that France received the OK from the US to export the missile to Egypt... but the source from defense-news (posted 1 month after the defense-world article) states "we cannot get the U.S. to lift its opposition to the sale of Scalp missiles" .... so, what's going on? did the US agree to the sale or not?[[User:Wasteland1|Wasteland1]] ([[User talk:Wasteland1|talk]]) 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

== Polish integration work on Ukrainian SU-24 ==

Just as a note, although I found substantiation of this report on BulgarianMilitary.com, a generally trustworthy source, I am growing more skeptical about it. The information may be a lift from a rumor posted a few days earlier on a well known Telegram Russian milblogger channel. There are further repetitions from non citable sources eg twitter and other blog sites, as well as untrustworthy sites known to publish Russian disinformation (avia-pro.net). A ukraine friendly blogger on reddit cited a report on what appears to be a fake site [https://militarymonitoring.com/poland-to-help-ukraine-integrate-soviet-su-24-bombers-with-nato-scalp-missiles/. here], and the post was taken down as citing a non reliable source. It was elsewhere claimed that the report is only a rumor, (for example on [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/yhk8p9/russian_telegram_channel_rybar_is_spreading_a/. on this blog]). As of this time, there is no official statement (either denying or affirming) or other reliable sources on this item so if there is nothing corroborating from a reliable source in the next week, I will remove what I added on the Ukraine report.[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 19:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think technically it is possible provided the SCALP is programmed on the ground and the carrier is just ferrying it to the launch point. There may be some additional spoofing to make the carrier think it is a different weapon. I doubt it would be more difficult than HARM integration, no signal lock needs to be confirmed as in HARM. If it requires any sort of translation hardware it is likely well within the capabilities of a lot of [[FPGA]]s.--[[User:Kitchen Knife|Kitchen Knife]] ([[User talk:Kitchen Knife|talk]]) 15:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
::Talk pages aren't for theories and general discussion. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] ([[User talk:Mark83|talk]]) 08:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

== Launch platform in Ukraine ==

The UK is donating some to Ukraine. From what platform will they be launched? [[Special:Contributions/209.93.202.10|209.93.202.10]] ([[User talk:209.93.202.10|talk]]) 13:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

:Su-24MR
:https://twitter.com/uaweapons/status/1661410105366020107?s=46&t=VJvJLR2QoqgA6mzxfypAHA [[User:S C Cheese|S C Cheese]] ([[User talk:S C Cheese|talk]]) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


== reference/source for Mikoyan MiG 29 as launch platform? ==
== reference/source for Mikoyan MiG 29 as launch platform? ==

Latest revision as of 22:05, 25 November 2024

reference/source for Mikoyan MiG 29 as launch platform?

[edit]

reference/source for Mikoyan MiG 29 as launch platform? Or anyone can add anything without reference? 83.99.198.116 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too heavy for the max pylon weight of Ukraines early MiG-29s. It's most likely either Su-27 or more likely Su-24. Not sure who added MiG-29 or where they got that info from. 159.196.12.87 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption

[edit]

"Wreckage of a Storm Shadow shot by Russian forces over Ukraine" should probably be "shot *down* by" 94.207.79.254 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be "crash landed over Ukraine", as there are no independent reports that this has been shot down. --11:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A466:2A7B:1:5149:5A61:83DA:BA38 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storm_Shadow&oldid=1259573090"