SCALP / Storm Shadow / MdCN

Forest Green said:
I would wager that there's no chance of fitting a BROACH in an ASMP-A/R anyway. They did study developing a conventional anti-ship variant at one time though, but it was deemed too expensive.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough a conventional ASMP was one of the competitors for the CASOM requirement which was won by Storm Shadow.
 
timmymagic said:
Forest Green said:
I would wager that there's no chance of fitting a BROACH in an ASMP-A/R anyway. They did study developing a conventional anti-ship variant at one time though, but it was deemed too expensive.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough a conventional ASMP was one of the competitors for the CASOM requirement which was won by Storm Shadow.
Click to expand...

head-bang-sylvester-the-cat.gif
 
I guess there is no real public information about stealth treatment of Storm shadow/Scalp ?

I am doing RCS Estimates for the missile, the model is done. As per my standard the model have air inlet and engine.

Storm-Shadow Ansys1.png

The TRI-60-3/5 Engine is fully modeled which includes all 4 stages of compressors, burner and the turbine.

Engine-StormShadow.png

However given the lack of information in treatment department. The model will either be PEC or treated with Perfect absorber.

In my view however for missile. PEC model can give some reasonable value as it's not as complex or large as aircraft. The modeled configuration is assumed to be in-flight configuration with Nose cover ejected, exposing the IIR Seeker. That part is also source of my confusion, whether it will entirely eject the nose cover or just the small part in the nose of the missile. The model i am working on atm is using the First assumption as depicted below.

First AssumptionSecond Assumption
IRseeker-1.png Exposed IR.png

However just in case. I have 2nd model with secondary assumption ready.
 
360 degrees RCS visualization. because why not. I did that mainly to find where were those lobes generated by the wings and tailfins of the missiles.


and the Contour plot format. The wing and surfaces contribution is visible but it's only prominent in some frequencies before it start to "disappear" or i should say unresolved (as the "resolution" that i use is 3 degrees, so the simulation take data every 3 degrees)


The image is unfortunately blurry for some reason :x probably because i encoded it using Mp4 format. i will use mkv in the future to preserve quality.
 
stealthflanker said:
I guess there is no real public information about stealth treatment of Storm shadow/Scalp ?

I am doing RCS Estimates for the missile, the model is done. As per my standard the model have air inlet and engine.

View attachment 701385

The TRI-60-3/5 Engine is fully modeled which includes all 4 stages of compressors, burner and the turbine.

View attachment 701386

However given the lack of information in treatment department. The model will either be PEC or treated with Perfect absorber.

In my view however for missile. PEC model can give some reasonable value as it's not as complex or large as aircraft. The modeled configuration is assumed to be in-flight configuration with Nose cover ejected, exposing the IIR Seeker. That part is also source of my confusion, whether it will entirely eject the nose cover or just the small part in the nose of the missile. The model i am working on atm is using the First assumption as depicted below.

First AssumptionSecond Assumption
View attachment 701387View attachment 701388

However just in case. I have 2nd model with secondary assumption ready.
Click to expand...
How's it compare to JASSM?
 
sferrin said:
How's it compare to JASSM?
Click to expand...

From my estimate at least JASSM have lower RCS in low band (VHF, L) Compared to the Storm shadow model. Their RCS in higher frequencies however like X,Ku are comparable.

Seems that when making the AGM-158, Lockheed was thinking to defeat the widest array of Radar possible which includes VHF. While Storm Shadow was not as optimized against low band radar, probably to simplify development and manufacturing process, with adequate performance to defeat most Russian mobile Radar system (mobile here being deployable in at least 15-30 minutes or less).

correction. The JASSM model i made prediction of is Lockheed, not Boeing. My apology for the mistake.
 
Last edited:
stealthflanker said:
sferrin said:
How's it compare to JASSM?
Click to expand...

From my estimate at least JASSM have lower RCS in low band (VHF, L) Compared to the Storm shadow model. Their RCS in higher frequencies however like X,Ku are comparable.

Seems that when making the AGM-158, Boeing was thinking to defeat the widest array of Radar possible which includes VHF. While Storm Shadow was not as optimized against low band radar, probably to simplify development and manufacturing process, with adequate performance to defeat most Russian mobile Radar system (mobile here being deployable in at least 15-30 minutes or less).
Click to expand...
Did you look at the McDonnel Douglas JASSM (Boeing) that lost or the LM missile?


 
stealthflanker said:
From my estimate at least JASSM have lower RCS in low band (VHF, L) Compared to the Storm shadow model. Their RCS in higher frequencies however like X,Ku are comparable.

Seems that when making the AGM-158, Boeing was thinking to defeat the widest array of Radar possible which includes VHF. While Storm Shadow was not as optimized against low band radar, probably to simplify development and manufacturing process, with adequate performance to defeat most Russian mobile Radar system (mobile here being deployable in at least 15-30 minutes or less).
Click to expand...
Is VHF/UHF even relevant against something flying at 200ft? I mean the optical horizon is only ~28km and the radar horizon is likely less and detecting it doesn't mean you can target it?
 
Forest Green said:
stealthflanker said:
From my estimate at least JASSM have lower RCS in low band (VHF, L) Compared to the Storm shadow model. Their RCS in higher frequencies however like X,Ku are comparable.

Seems that when making the AGM-158, Boeing was thinking to defeat the widest array of Radar possible which includes VHF. While Storm Shadow was not as optimized against low band radar, probably to simplify development and manufacturing process, with adequate performance to defeat most Russian mobile Radar system (mobile here being deployable in at least 15-30 minutes or less).
Click to expand...
Is VHF/UHF even relevant against something flying at 200ft? I mean the optical horizon is only ~28km and the radar horizon is likely less and detecting it doesn't mean you can target it?
Click to expand...
But if you're flying at altitude, for range, you'd want to have the lower RCS. AGM-129 did the same.
 
Forest Green said:
stealthflanker said:
From my estimate at least JASSM have lower RCS in low band (VHF, L) Compared to the Storm shadow model. Their RCS in higher frequencies however like X,Ku are comparable.

Seems that when making the AGM-158, Boeing was thinking to defeat the widest array of Radar possible which includes VHF. While Storm Shadow was not as optimized against low band radar, probably to simplify development and manufacturing process, with adequate performance to defeat most Russian mobile Radar system (mobile here being deployable in at least 15-30 minutes or less).
Click to expand...
Is VHF/UHF even relevant against something flying at 200ft? I mean the optical horizon is only ~28km and the radar horizon is likely less and detecting it doesn't mean you can target it?
Click to expand...

I've read one source that claimed AGM-158 had a minimum cruise altitude of 1600 feet, but it wasn't anything I'd trust. I've never seen it expressly stated but I think AGM-158 spends a lot of time at medium altitude to extend range. I've never seen any exact figures presented for its flight profile; I'm just guessing. But the ER version seems to squeeze a lot of range out of a 2250 lb airframe with a thousand pound warhead.
 
I think that's the main difference. The developers designed Storm Shadow as a fighter-delivered weapon intended for tactical strikes at low altitude, so the issue of VLO in the VHF/UHF domain never crossed their radar.
 
Incidentally France has not sent any SCALP to Ukraine yet. There is 'consideration' underway of whether or not to send 50 of them at some point in the future....
 
Italy has decided to join the FCASW programme (Storm Shadow replacement, among other things) with the UK and France.
Think that means that there will be 2 missile types, which is a good thing...

Probably also means that its the end of the line for the independent development of AShM from the Sea Killer/Marte/Teseo line. With the Teseo EVO being the last independent Italian design.

Probably also means that F-35 integration is now more sure as well.

www.latribune.fr

L'Italie rejoint le programme de missiles franco-britanniques FMAN/FMC

le ministre de la Défense italien Guido Crosetto a décidé de rejoindre le programme franco-britannique FMAN/FMC, les futurs missiles anti-navires et missiles de croisière. Une lettre d'intention a été signée.
www.latribune.fr www.latribune.fr
 
timmymagic said:
Incidentally France has not sent any SCALP to Ukraine yet.
Click to expand...

Macron needs to get off the fence and send these promised Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles to Ukraine, unlike the Storm Shadow there is a variant of the SCALP that is ground-launched which would suit Ukraine very well.
 
NMaude said:
Macron needs to get off the fence and send these promised Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles to Ukraine, unlike the Storm Shadow there is a variant of the SCALP that is ground-launched which would suit Ukraine very well.
Click to expand...
Is that actually in service with anyone, or even in production?
 
NMaude said:
That's the one I was thinking of and it shouldn't be hard to develop a land-based launcher for it just there was one developed for a ground-launched version of the Harpoon.
Click to expand...
TBH it's kind of pointless whilst the current geographical limits are imposed on targets. These missiles were really designed for taking out an enemy's ability to make weapons and train troops at the roots rather than merely complicating their storage and delivery to the front within theatre.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom