SCALP / Storm Shadow / MdCN

kqcke for you said:
Interresting. Only ~1000km range but a ~500kg warhead?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned earlier, the MdCN uses a turbojet engine rather than a turbofan like the Tomahawk, so it needs to reduce to a 300kg warhead to manage 1,400km from a ship launch. Germany however uses a turbofan in their Taurus, so maybe they can collaborate. Interestingly, the sub-launched MdCN also only has 1,000km range, so maybe that also has a 500kg warhead.

You can see from this table that all the small Williams F122- series turbofans have lower SFCs than the Microturbo TRI 60- series jets. Sadly the SFC is not quoted for the Taurus one though.
https://jet-engine.net/miltfspec.htm
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
As I mentioned earlier, the MdCN uses a turbojet engine rather than a turbofan like the Tomahawk, so it needs to reduce to a 300kg warhead to manage 1,400km from a ship launch. Germany however uses a turbofan in their Taurus, so maybe they can collaborate.
Click to expand...
Then again that turbofan is an variation of the F415. Can't really see how france is buying that but maybe as part of/ for FC/ASW they developed an Turbofan already.
 
kqcke for you said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1811429451433168921
View: https://x.com/BMVg_Bundeswehr/status/1811429451433168921https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/geme...ickeln-a-f9a2a007-d106-41f4-b920-b37b8cf4259b

A 2000km Cruise missile will LCM be? Then it probaly does have a turbofan.
Click to expand...
On the sidelines of the NATO summit, high-ranking military officials said that the idea behind the project was to develop a land-based cruise missile with a range of at least 2,000 kilometers, ideally even more.
Click to expand...
It's possible, if you replace the turbojet on the MdCN with a turbofan, that could increase range by around 75% based on sfc figures. Which would take the range with a 300kg warhead from 1,400km to 2,450km, and the range with the 500kg warhead would increase from 1,000km to 1,750km.
 
Forest Green said:
It's possible, if you replace the turbojet on the MdCN with a turbofan, that could increase range by around 75% based on sfc figures. Which would take the range with a 300kg warhead from 1,400km to 2,450km, and the range with the 500kg warhead would increase from 1,000km to 1,750km.
Click to expand...
Maybe they increase the warhead weight to 400kg which gives ous around 2100km range.
 
Last edited:
Russians apparently are doing this with some of their cruise missiles regarding modifications for turbofan engines. With the big old cruise missiles you can apparently get pretty ridiculous flight ranges and time. I think there are rumors that the izd720 is essentially the kh-69 with turbofan and radar guidance. The extra reach would allow much greater flexibility in curving around anti air batteries and heavily surveilled areas.
 
I Just found this PDF which says that TRI-50 has an SPFC of 2,64 lbs/daN/h. After i searched some more i found some information which gave me a round about number for an conversion too lb/hr/lbst which would give ous an SPFC of 5,829 lb/hr/lbst for it. Tought this may be wrong as the SPFC for TRI-60 in there is different to what i know. Even then TRI-50 is everything but efficient and the 1000-1400km range sounds kinda crazy to me if the numbers are right.
 

Attachments

  • b0888f74d52ea382c2b92f9231c4575acde2.pdf
    6.6 MB · Views: 37
  • microturbo_fiche_tr50_-_uk1 (1).pdf
    644.8 KB · Views: 24
  • F655_CompleteSample.pdf
    307.7 KB · Views: 20
The TR-50 turbojet in the MdCN is about 1.05 lb/lbf.hr (assuming similar to TR60 in Storm Shadow, I think I converted once and it was slightly worse), assuming it's the same as the Storm Shadow.
https://jet-engine.net/miltfspec.htm
The Tomahawk turbofan is 0.683 lb/lbf.hr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_F107
kqcke for you said:
I Just found this PDF which says that TRI-50 has an SPFC of 2,64 lbs/daN/h. After i searched some more i found some information which gave me a round about number for an conversion too lb/hr/lbst which would give ous an SPFC of 5,829 lb/hr/lbst for it. Tought this may be wrong as the SPFC for TRI-60 in there is different to what i know. Even then TRI-50 is everything but efficient and the 1000-1400km range sounds kinda crazy to me if the numbers are right.
Click to expand...
Your conversion is correct but you are employing it wrong, since the measurement is lb fuel/unit force. Therefore you need to divide 2.64 by 5.829/2.64, which is 2.64/2.208, which is 1.2lb/lbf.hr. Which is very poor compared to a Tomahawk engine.
 
Forest Green said:
The TR-50 turbojet in the MdCN is about 1.05 lb/lbf.hr (assuming similar to TR60 in Storm Shadow, I think I converted once and it was slightly worse), assuming it's the same as the Storm Shadow.
https://jet-engine.net/miltfspec.htm
The Tomahawk turbofan is 0.683 lb/lbf.hr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_F107
Click to expand...
I know tought the question is if it changes within the F-107 variants. Also didn't the newer TLAMs get the F145?
Forest Green said:
Your conversion is correct but you are employing it wrong, since the measurement is lb fuel/unit force. Therefore you need to divide 2.64 by 5.829/2.64, which is 2.64/2.208, which is 1.2lb/lbf.hr. Which is very poor compared to a Tomahawk engine.
Click to expand...
Okay so around half as efficient or twice as efficient with an Turbofan.
 
Compared to NCM the LCM will get the increased range (nothing new but probaly a turbofan as we talked about) as well as flight controls, navigation and target acquisition. They want to implement a lot of lessons of the ukraine war and in general have a higher survivablility. Also as some guessed before Taurus will influence the missile probaly in the engine department (if there is no european alternative) and guidance.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/untern...-das-plant-die-industrie-jetzt/100052409.html
 
kqcke for you said:
Also as some guessed before Taurus will influence the missile probaly in the engine department (if there is no european alternative) and guidance.
Click to expand...

You'd have to hope that the RR/Safran work on the engine for FCASW will bear fruit...
 
Flyaway said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...to-strike-inside-russia?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5
Click to expand...

Realistically given the expenditure to date, and the necessity to retain the Storm Shadow MLU stockpile for UK war reserve, you have to wonder if the UK has more than a handful left that it can send....Storm Shadow has been noticeably missing in recent months from Ukrainian strikes.

France made a big show of delivering 10 SCALP recently (which I think means they have sent/pledged 60 in total). We know that France had c400 left of their buy of c500 in 2020 and were only planning to MLU 100 of those, whilst retiring the rest. It would seem that France may have revised that figure and decided to keep 300+ in stockpile, which would make a lot of sense, whether or not they've increased their MLU numbers is anyones guess...but to keep them operational they would need to add them to the contract. I'm not particularly au fait with French defence contracts or announcements though (and the French MoD tend to be far more comprehensive and open in their defence reporting than the UK is).
 
Last edited:
Is Storm Shadow still in production? If not then it needs to be restarted.
 
NMaude said:
Is Storm Shadow still in production? If not then it needs to be restarted.
Click to expand...

The French line apparently is, but its only produced small volumes in recent years, and with long run ups in terms of lead times on components. Grant Shapps when UK Defence Secretary, in a video, said words to the effect that Storm Shadow was being produced when he we was visiting MBDA in Bolton...but I suspect he was talking about the MLU work on existing missiles (Bolton does the MLU for UK, Italian and Saudi, plus I believe the UAE Black Shaheen).

Bottom line I suspect the French line is still in operation for small amounts, but the UK is not producing wholly new missiles, with both finishing off MLU work on existing missiles. Realistically that might take them up to FCASW production commencement. We can be fairly sure on this as no order has been announced....and under stock market rules BAE would have to report it in the annual report...there is naturally a timelag on this, but I don't think the UK Gov would miss the opportunity for good publicity for announcing an order if there was one...the fact that the UK put out a requirement for long range strike options specifically for Ukraine in 2023 to anyone who could deliver would tend to point to them thinking a restart was not possible in a reasonable timeframe. Which in some ways is a surprise....after all the MLU replaces many components with new build items....including some of the most complex parts.
 
Last edited:
Storm Shadow should still be in production expecially since we recently used them on Yemen so we would need to replenish the missiles that were launched their.
 
I dont think it was, there was only a limited number ordered between France and the UK and that was mostly finished delivery a decade ago, there was the Spear 4 mid life upgrade programme refurbishing stocks to extend their life.

They may have reopened a limited production run to replenish expenditures but the idea was always that Storm Shadows would just be replaced by FC/ASW. You also have Spear 3 now in service after completing qualification that will replace it at the lower end of its operating window, a 150-180km air to ground missile of which 4 can be carried on an F-35 pylon or 3 on a Eurofighter pylon.
 
FighterJock said:
Storm Shadow should still be in production expecially since we recently used them on Yemen so we would need to replenish the missiles that were launched their.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A better cycle is design and then build at a very high rate for a short period of time and then cycle through the design and build cycle again. Spare line capacity then gets taken over by upgrading previous missiles to a newer standard. The side effect is you may have a couple of different missiles on the flight line at the same time but you also get much better value for money spent and continue to adapt to changes in the battlespace. It also allows you to not have the more common issue of components going end of life. Exports can come from existing user stocks especially as the cycle begins again on replacement.

The above cycle can be moderated across programs, so ALCM, then ASCM, then ARM, then AAM then back to ALCM etc. Would make MBDA happier with consistent work and make their products more competitive on the international market given often volume production is too low to get the cost benefits high volume US weapons get.
 
Ozair said:
I disagree. A better cycle is design and then build at a very high rate for a short period of time and then cycle through the design and build cycle again. Spare line capacity then gets taken over by upgrading previous missiles to a newer standard. The side effect is you may have a couple of different missiles on the flight line at the same time but you also get much better value for money spent and continue to adapt to changes in the battlespace. It also allows you to not have the more common issue of components going end of life. Exports can come from existing user stocks especially as the cycle begins again on replacement.

The above cycle can be moderated across programs, so ALCM, then ASCM, then ARM, then AAM then back to ALCM etc. Would make MBDA happier with consistent work and make their products more competitive on the international market given often volume production is too low to get the cost benefits high volume US weapons get.
Click to expand...
I rather think you're ignoring the costs of repeatedly reworking your production line. Tooling, training, supply chains, etc.

No one wants to be repeatedly reworking their equipment, especially the sort of equipment that requires special handling for disassembly given warheads, motors and pyrotechnics. If you can persuade the Treasury to fund an MLU a decade or two down the line you're doing as well as can be expected.

On top of which most export customers are going to laugh in your face if you offer them second-hand equipment halfway through its lifecycle.
 
DWG said:
I rather think you're ignoring the costs of repeatedly reworking your production line. Tooling, training, supply chains, etc.

No one wants to be repeatedly reworking their equipment, especially the sort of equipment that requires special handling for disassembly given warheads, motors and pyrotechnics. If you can persuade the Treasury to fund an MLU a decade or two down the line you're doing as well as can be expected.
Click to expand...
I agree those costs are there but you amortize those costs over higher production runs with lower unit costs. As we move further into 3d printing then the complexity of the production line decreases and its ability to adapt to different designs improves. Raytheon is already doing this with many parts and whree Andruil is going with their Arsenal facilities points to where wider Industry, including European manufactures and Govts should be looking.
DWG said:
On top of which most export customers are going to laugh in your face if you offer them second-hand equipment halfway through its lifecycle.
Click to expand...
Not second hand. Still boxed and brand new held in a warehouse waiting for the Govt to use or a export order to request. The lead time from acquisition to deployment for an export customer reduces considerably.

Perhaps I'm pipe dreaming but the current method isn't going to produce the number of munitions required in the timeframes and the traditional view of purpose built facilities that churn along in slow time is inefficient and costly.
 
WatcherZero said:
I dont think it was, there was only a limited number ordered between France and the UK and that was mostly finished delivery a decade ago, there was the Spear 4 mid life upgrade programme refurbishing stocks to extend their life.
Click to expand...

To be fair the UK's order of >900 and France's order of 500 were colossal orders for cruise missiles at the time. Only the US with Tomahawk and ALCM , and the then long gone Soviet Union with KH-55, had produced more. Remember this was before JASSM entered production.
 
DWG said:
And yet the car industry, with the high volumes you desire, shows no sign of moving away from it.
Click to expand...
Seems like there is rising interest to me https://www.raise3d.com/blog/3d-printing-automotive-industry/ but we are really talking about very different market segments there. Munitions production is akin to high end performance car production per the link above and not Toyota assembling cars from parts made across the world by the lowest bidder.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom