Jump to content

Talk:Bloodhound (missile)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remaining examples

[edit]

I'm not 100% sure but Thorpe Camp Visitor Center has a Bloodhound in the museum. I have a photo of it which I can post. Can anyone verify this?

Bloodhound

Tanis8472 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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 121.90.198.52 (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article name

[edit]

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

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)[reply]
I've requested a name move as an uncontroversial proposal. GraemeLeggett 14:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree. Other types have "full" names. Tanis8472 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Complete guess - maybe it was used to communicate aiming and "fire" information, as cables doing this could be destroyed by enemy bombing. 80.0.127.106 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a guess; The mast on the Bloodhound II launcher carries a CW aerial designed to receive ranging information from the Indigo Corkscrew doppler signal which, in conjunction with the Type 86 TIR, uses the missile start (launch) point as a reference, as the launchers may be located some way from the radars and fire control systems, hence missile range is always calculated from its actual launch point, so improving accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhound site at Bawdsey, Suffolk

[edit]

Comment moved to Bawdsey Manor 80.0.102.191 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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 80.177.161.213 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bloodhound (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bloodhound (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Range

[edit]

There is a slight issue with the range, according to the text the range of the improved Mark 2 is 80 km, meanwhile the range of missile is given as 190 km in the infobox... I would alter it to the text value of 85 km also given in the source - 190 km seems to be the estimated value for the Blue Envoy.Wurelbum (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloodhound_(missile)&oldid=1199003919"