Talk:Bloodhound (missile)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

  (Redirected from Talk:Bristol Bloodhound)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history(Rated C-Class)
MILHISTThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CThis article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Bristol(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not happy[edit]

Not sure I am happy with the statement:

"Replaced in RAF service by the Rapier missile."

The capabilities of Bloodhound and Rapier were so different - Bloodhound, med/high altitude, medium range, Rapier, low/med altitude, short range. Of course all that depends on your terminology.

If any entry is required perhaps:

"As at 2005 the only SAM in service with the RAF is [Rapier]."

Bob Moffatt

To correct the designation for Switzerland:

it's BL-64 means Boden-Luft 64 means the year of first deployment, in this case 1964

The Mk 1 has a range of 80 km, the Mk 2 185 km, and the Mk 3 "a longer range (around 75 mile)" - i.e. 120 km. This is shorter, not longer! So which is correct? BobThePirate 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but has anyone noticed that a museum model of the Bristol Bloodhound was used as the fictional "Standfast Missile" in the episode Rocket of the TV Series Endeavor Morse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

article name[edit]

Any good reason why this article isn't at "Bristol Bloodhound"?GraemeLeggett 16:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

None as far as I can see it was never known as "Bloodhound SAM" so I would support a move MilborneOne 08:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've requested a name move as an uncontroversial proposal. GraemeLeggett 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

raf service[edit]

why was this missle taken out of service it seems to still be an effective missle even now plus it would of been cheaper than running some squadrons. an effective air defense is made up of several different parts. fighters,missles,radar. Why did the government remove a part of that system and just leave uk AD with just the tornado f3.Corustar 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically with the dissolution of the fUSSR the fSovs stopped flying all manned bomber flights. Their Bear and Bison bombers were not really credible against the UK anyway, as they were dedicated to naval attack, and with their passing the need for air defense basically dropped to zero. The nuclear deterrent was now SLBM based, both for the fSovs and UK, so the need for a layered air defense in the strategic role simply disappeared. Now we know the CIS is flying Bears again recently, but those 15 aircraft can be considered a bit of a joke. I assure you the F.3 is more than enough to deal with that "threat".
If a new aircraft threat were to come forth, which is extremely unlikely, I'd wager the Patriot would be the obvious solution. Although the Bloodhound was certainly a good weapon for its day (there were a few similar though, Hawk and SA-6 are pretty close) the radars and control systems were hopelessly outdated. Bloodhound had limited capability against a Mach 2 target at 60,000 ft at a range of around 50 km, whereas Patriot PAC-2 can intercept IRBMs at Mach 5 at up to 160 km, and attack several lower-speed targets at the same time. Being entirely solid-state, it's also likely to be less expensive to operate, as well as being much more mobile.
In the 25 years between the Bloodhound and Patriot we learned a whole lot about solid fuels, electronics, radar and high speed flight. That newer missiles completely outperform the Bloodhound shouldn't be unexpected!
Maury 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The mast on the launcher[edit]

Does anyone know the purpose of the radio mast on the rear of the launcher? An identical unit can also be seen on the Thunderbird. This suggests it has something to do with the Type 83 radar unit and guidance system, which was common to both missile systems in their first versions.

I have read a description that suggest some sort of guidance signal was sent out of this mast. An RAF article seemed to suggest that it was a reference signal that doppler shifted the raw radar frequency so the missile knew what to look for, but if that is the case then it wouldn't have been used with the Type 83, which was a pulse unit.

More confusingly, when working on the Ferranti Argus article I came across references that suggested the Argus was used to calculate these signals and the pointing angles for a radar dish on the launcher. Clearly such a dish does not exist, and this antenna is obviously omnidirectional, so that's all rather confusing!

Any insights GRATEFULLY appreciated.

Maury 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Complete guess - maybe it was used to communicate aiming and "fire" information, as cables doing this could be destroyed by enemy bombing. (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bloodhound site at Bawdsey, Suffolk[edit]

Comment moved to Bawdsey Manor (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Bit of a daft idea to rename the article from the common name Bristol Bloodhound. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sebastian de Ferranti agreed to pay back £4.25 million to the government" Incorrect?[edit]

I've never contributed to wikipedia before so if I'm breaching etiquette in some way be gentle!

According to wikipedia, Sebastian de Ferranti died in 1930, yet on the bloodhound page the subject statement appears. Both cannot be correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but what about the "bang you're dead" bit at the end of its mission ?[edit]

The article needs discussion and explanation of the warhead : how/when activated, how it actually shot down its target, how powerful an explosion etc. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanded slightly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)