Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 16 February 2015

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / British / European B‑class

This 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force

A fact from Brimstone (missile) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Brimstone missile, an anti-tank guided missile, is carried by three Royal Air Force aeroplane types? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2004/July.

[REDACTED]

Regarding information on the article

"The missile is a development of Boeing's AGM-114 Hellfire and is designed to meet the RAF's requirement for a long range anti-armour weapon"

I thought that the AGM-114 Hellfire was a Lockheed Martin designed and built weapon, not a Boeing weapon. Can someone backup this statement or if it cannot be verified, be removed or edited? Thanks. ThePointblank 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Brimstone is based on the original Hellfire missile, a Boeing product. LM are responsible for Hellfire II.

better pic?

Isn't there a better pic, even if its a static mock-up at an airshow?

Would be nice to have a pic of three on the triple rail launcher system. Bumper12 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

change infobox?

Um, maybe we should change the infobox from ((weapon-missile)) to ((Infobox_Missile))? virtually all the other missiles are using this. Cheers. Bumper12 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

news

According to www.flightglobal.com, the Dual Mode seeker version (Laser instead of MMW radar) is now in service with RAF, and has flown on a sortie in Iraq.

Think this can be added - but I'm not sure if this new DMS variant is the same thing as Brimstone 2?

Anyone know? Bumper12 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation from a visitor - I'm not familiar with editing so hopefully one of you can deal with this. The missile referred to as "Brimstone 2" is indeed Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone. The manufacturer's own blurb is at the following link:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_DUAL-MODE-BRIMSTONE_416.html

This has all the correct dates for the first operational mission (in Iraq) with DMS Brimstone and the first firing (in Afghanistan). The version in use in Libya at the moment is DMS Brimstone - the following Telegraph report mentions that the missiles were laser-guided.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8158433/RAF-launches-attacks-on-Gaddafi-armour.html

I am not aware of any operational deployment or usage of the "original" Brimstone so the information on the current version of the page is incorrect.

A good closeup of the DMS Brimstone is here:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/14/a1ac5291-ad87-45f4-9ec1-81dd36143faa.Large.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.113.164 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Harriers

I've tried to sort things out a bit, and generally update things. The one thing that's not clear is where it got to on the Harrier. The mid-2009 video was widely reported as being from a Harrier firing in Afghanistan, but it just doesn't make sense given that the weapon was never officially cleared for the Harrier. I can only conclude that some journalists got the wrong end of a stick during a briefing and confused the Harrier with the Tornado, which had just come arrived in theatre and would want to show off its new toy. However it's hard to prove that when the only sources say the other way.

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_apr/mulholland.pdf has some useful details.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8463799/Libya-RAF-fears-over-missile-shortages.html quotes a price of £105k/shot - I've not seen any official source for this?

There's some reasonable pics of it deployed on TELIC at http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafoperationalupdate/gallery/gallery21dec08.cfm Be nice to have a good pic of the underside of a plane in flight carrying some though - maybe the USAF has taken some Wiki-licensable pics? 82.31.18.156 (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Having poked around, it looks like final integration on the Harrier came quite close to signing off before getting delayed in early 2010 as a cost-cutting thing - obviously someone took the view that since they had left Afghanistan and were going back to the carriers they might as well wait until the IM version was ready in 2012. I've done some further tidying - it could do with some more on the history of the programme in the late 90s/early 00s, and the technical stuff needs much better referencing, but at least the intro is a bit more fit for purpose now. 82.31.18.156 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see what the Harrier can and cannot carry, check this link and website: http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/?p=1025 It is an official think tank.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This official photo shows clearly that the Harrier can carry the Brimstione (12, count them!) but despite this, will not carry it due to an "overlapping interest" as stated by the Royal Navy pilot - Commander Nigel (Sharkey) Ward (a well known Falklands War veteran) in the "Phoenix Think Tank" link which Foxhound66 has provided above. --Dave 07:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Foxhound66 - The Phoenix Thinktank has no "official" status, it's just a bunch of ex-RN/Marines/FAA types who've got together to lobby for more funding for the Navy and naval aviation. Actually, since that they aren't going to get any more cash for the Navy, their real purpose seems to be establishing the sins committed by the perfidious crabs against their beloved Harriers. That's not to belittle the great service they did as individuals in the Falklands and elsewhere, but it's hard to regard such a partisan lobby group as a WP:RS, certainly not for contemporary stuff where they've been shown to be making things up to support their argument (eg claiming that Tornado needed a new engine at vast cost as a reason why Tornado should have been scrapped rather than Harrier).

@Dave1185 - thanks but err, you do realise I'd already provided a link to that photo in the article? I wasn't disputing that Harrier couldn't carry Brimstone - I'd already provided a WP:RS for the carriage trials, I was just trying to firm up the details of the history. Carrying a weapon is still a long way from being officially cleared to fire it, and there's statements in Parliament from Nov 2010 saying that Brimstone had still not been cleared on Harrier by then. My edits yesterday clarify some of the intervening history. I don't have to read Sharkey's version to have some idea of how he will tell the story, actually I think there is room for an explanation that relies less on conspiracy theories. Although JUMP capability D (the Harrier upgrade including the Brimstone integration) was funded, the MoD budget was looking really tight in 2008 thanks to cost increases in CVF, Typhoon and so on. Flight trials and firing new weapons costs money - BAE were paid £8.6m for a few months flight trials of SPEAR Capability 2 Block 1 (let's just call it SC2B1 for short) - and once Harrier had come home from Afghanistan a new anti-tank weapon looked less of a priority when they still had stocks of Mavericks. So the final flight trials got put on the backburner - and maybe there were some technical problems with the integration, we can't tell. I'd guess it was just a cash-for-flight-trials issue though. Then at the beginning of 2010, they firmed up the details of SC2B1. Originally it seems that the next spiral of Brimstone would have been a simple replacement with insensitive munitions, but they're now making it modular (to make modules available for other elements of SPEAR?) and doing other changes to the airframe. So one can imagine that in the original plan, little if any requalification would have been needed for the new version of Brimstone on Harrier, but now some major flight trials would have been needed. Since Harrier still had Maverick, there was not much point in spending money for trials with what would soon become the outdated version of Brimstone, it could afford to wait for the SC2B1 version to be finalised in 2012. And then of course the Harrier force was disbanded so it all became a bit moot.

Obviously the above is all guesswork, I'm not suggesting it goes in the article, I'm just trying to read between the lines to get a mental model of what went on. It is at least a plausible story that doesn't need to cast aspersions on the RAF's motives as the PTT do so freely. I think that yesterday's edits mean that we've probably got enough on the Harrier integration. Obviously an aircraft that isn't yet cleared for the weapon is a bit of a non-story, but since it's an issue that has caused questions to be asked in Parliament and elsewhere, it probably merits a couple of sentences. As long as they are thoroughly referenced and don't have too much speculation about the motives of those involved... 82.31.18.156 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple launch mode used in Libya

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RafConductsPrecisionStrikesOverLibya.htm

"Previously during combat missions in both Libya and Afghanistan, the Brimstone missile has been fired individually, using laser guidance, with exceptionally accurate results.

"However, it also has the capacity to be fired in a large salvo utilising millimetric radar to guide simultaneously each missile to a separate target. Since a large concentration of former regime armoured vehicles had been located by NATO, this mission saw the salvo firing technique used for the very first time in action, with some two-dozen missiles fired.

"Full battle damage assessment continues, but seven or eight target vehicles were observed on fire, and the precision nature of the Brimstone's warhead means that additional targets were most likely destroyed or severely damaged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/brimstone8.html

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II _Online 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DU warhead

Can someone please source this wild claim that the Brimstone warhead is depleted uranium, otherwise I'm removing it. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• B-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles