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
OneClickArchived "Launch platform in Ukraine" to Talk:Storm Shadow/Archive 1
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
}}
}}
{{Archives}}
{{Archives}}

== 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)
::[[BBC]] are saying maximum range 155 miles! [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rwkk9r51jo][Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rwkk9r51jo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rwkk9r51jo][[Special:Contributions/92.15.247.231|92.15.247.231]] ([[User talk:92.15.247.231|talk]]) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Maybe was a typo in the weapon template. Changed to correct 250km.
:::See original manufacturer https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/storm-shadow-scalp/
:::Changeset: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Storm_Shadow&diff=prev&oldid=1259564416 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:9E8:34F0:E700:99D3:4F25:9162:192|2001:9E8:34F0:E700:99D3:4F25:9162:192]] ([[User talk:2001:9E8:34F0:E700:99D3:4F25:9162:192#top|talk]]) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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"