Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: France test Navy-Scalp cruise missile
FCUS    6/16/2010 6:52:57 AM
France has begun flight trials of the MBDA Scalp Naval sea-launched cruise missile. The test firing of the MdCN (missile de croisiere naval), as the Scalp Naval is formally known by its customer, the French armaments agency DGA, took place at France?s missile range at Biscarrosse on May 28, but DGA only announced the event June 15. The missile was fired from a vertical launcher which would be used for the operational application on the Fremm multipurpose frigate and the Barracuda submarine France is looking to field 150 Scalp Navals on Fremm frigates starting in 2014, with the 50 submarine-launched weapons due to come into inventory in 2017. source: *ttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/ The Navy Scalp derives from the Scalp-EG. It is propulsed by a TR50 turboengine and carries a 250kg warhead. It can reach a target at a range of over 1,000 km and thus could be used to destroy highly strategic targets deep in enemy territory. source (in french :s): *ttp://www.opex360.com/2010/06/15/premier-tir-reussi-du-missile-de-croisiere-naval-mdcn/
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
FCUS       6/16/2010 6:58:17 AM
I forgot to mention the most important thing: the test was a success
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Not to ba Francophobic @rse...   6/16/2010 9:27:27 AM
but what was the measure of "Success" in this test?
1) The missile fired, from it's launch tube?
2) The missile fired, from it's launch tube? Oriented itself along the flight path and assumed proper altitude?
3) The missile fired, from it's launch tube? Oriented itself along the flight path and assumed proper altitude?  The missile flew the proper course, altitude, speed, and distance planned?
4) The missile fired, from it's launch tube? Oriented itself along the flight path and assumed proper altitude?  The missile flew the proper course, altitude, speed, and distance planned?  It arrived within the desired CEP of the weapon?
 
I say this because modern bureaucracies use a number of numeric and semantic tricks to report outcomes, and make them "successful."  In the Gulf War the USAF listed it's Precision Guided Munitions as 90-plus% successful, which they defined as landing within 10 metres of their designated aim-point.  That's one measure of success, but the real question was/is, "Was the target negated by the weapon?"  Simply landing near the target is NOT a guarantor of target negation or disruption.
 
So that DGA says the test was "successful" begs the question, "How did DGA define 'success?'"  And is that measure of "success" a reasonable measure of success?  If it's a proof of concept then, leaving the tube and settling onto a proper course is good enough, if it was a full-scale proofing, then more stringent criteria need to be applied.
 
As I say, I don't mean to be an @rse, just asking the question.
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/28/2010 8:31:28 AM
"but what was the measure of "Success" in this test?"
 
Missile was ejected from the firing tube, separated from its launch booster and moved to horizontal position powered by its engine.
 
IOW it was successfully vertically launched and reached the cruise regime.
 
Further guidance and terminal performance was not part of this (first) test but given that these re-use the existing SCALP components, no major surprise is expected.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       8/1/2010 1:04:01 PM

"but what was the measure of "Success" in this test?"

 

Missile was ejected from the firing tube, separated from its launch booster and moved to horizontal position powered by its engine.

 

IOW it was successfully vertically launched and reached the cruise regime.

 

Further guidance and terminal performance was not part of this (first) test but given that these re-use the existing SCALP components, no major surprise is expected.

Test was therefore not complete validation for use (weapon proof).
In simple English. (SARCASM).: "Egg laid, but not hatched."
 
H.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       8/1/2010 3:57:15 PM
More Francophobe crap from the Googler.
 
If the test was for launch and transition to cruise, and it achieved that, then the test was a success.
 
What happened? did a Frenchman screw your wife? Is that why you hate all things French?
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       8/1/2010 4:14:55 PM

More Francophobe crap from the Googler.

 

If the test was for launch and transition to cruise, and it achieved that, then the test was a success.


 

What happened? did a Frenchman screw your wife? Is that why you hate all things French?



From initiation  to weapon effect. That  is a weapon proof. Failure to complete the total event chain is therefore not a validation-not a complete test. The rush to brag about such an incomplete event is SCALP donkey braying, much like a LockMart announcement of a NETFIRES missile launch from the can now would be  When it hits a defended something or impacts consistent with prediction into a measured error performance criterion from an opeval test or actual weapon proof, like the M-51 recently actually did, then you can brag about it.
 
Why don't you learn to think about what is said and WHY, and park that emotional BS?  
 
I don't hate the French. I just dislike pretentious malarkey and failure that masquerades as success.

H. 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       8/1/2010 5:13:39 PM
More Francophobe crap from the Googler.
 
If the test was for launch and transition to cruise, and it achieved that, then the test was a success.
 
What happened? did a Frenchman screw your wife? Is that why you hate all things French?
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       8/1/2010 5:22:45 PM

Sorry for the double post folks.

Look, if Blue Apple is correct in his statement of the test objectives and the result of the test is as he says, then the test was a success.

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that? Inventing criteria just so you can diss the French just confirms what regular readers here already know; that you are a bigoted and biased poster when all things French are being discussed.

Why am I even replying to you, I ask myself. You are just a waste of everyones time.

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Blue Apple is correct about what?   8/1/2010 11:54:53 PM
About what? Failure?
 
If he touts an incomplete test as a complete test then he just told us that the French are moving backwards? They've been able to launch Exocet from subs and surface ships successfully to target for quite a while. Validating SCALP to target as wello should be child's play for France NOW.   
 
Apparently not.   
 
Treat this as a pop up and flopover exercise to proof the engine and just call it that, and keep your fingers crossed that the guidance and fusing SCALP has, doesn't have the 50% fail rate as the first Exocets accepted for service actually did. (That is from the Argentine experience in the Falklands War and from the USS Stark Incident where half of the missiles failed.) 
 
H.   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/2/2010 2:14:45 AM
"Why am I even replying to you, I ask myself. You are just a waste of everyones time."
 
Indeed. The idea that one would skip all development testing and go straight to qualification is quite insane (or Russian - see the Bulava fiasco for what trying to save on testing can lead to).
 
FYI, next test will validate underwater launch for the submarine version.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics