Exocet Missile Developments

GTX

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
15 April 2006
Messages
8,036
Reaction score
11,549
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I couldn't find an existing thread dedicated to the Exocet missile, so here goes.

To start with, does anyone have more information on the supposed Iraqi modified Exocet to use a TV/ELECTRO-OPTICAL seeker:

D6XEklcXoAAuYty
 
In 1966 the UK decides it needed a surface to surface missile to replace Buccaneer aircraft as its main weapon against enemy .ships.
Three categories of weapon are envisaged. Initially the AS12 is bought for the Wasp and then Sea Skua for the Lynx.
A medium range weapon for fitting to ships takes longer. The decision to purchase Exocet in its MM38 boxed launcher version is not announced until 1970. The first platforms HMS Norfolk (County) and HMS Cleopatra (Leander) are not in service until 1975. But by 1982 4 Countys 8 Leanders 6 T21 and 4T22 are in service. By the end of the Cold War, new T22s and the T23 are getting Harpoon instead. No RN Exocets were used in action.
The long range missile was initially supposed to be the Otomat, then the UK Martel derived Sea Eagle but Harpoon is bought for subs and later for frigates.
 
Bit of a resurrection...

Does anyone recall seeing a pic of the UK's Excalibur Exocet system on Gibraltar. I seem to recall seeing a very grainy pic of it an age ago...
 
timmymagic said:
Bit of a resurrection...

Does anyone recall seeing a pic of the UK's Excalibur Exocet system on Gibraltar. I seem to recall seeing a very grainy pic of it an age ago...
Click to expand...
Many years ago (when I worked at RNAD Gosport) I was driving into work past ASWE and noticed a pair of Exocet launchers facing South over Portsmouth. Later that day I mentioned seeing them to the Exocet Stock Controller. He exploded, saying that they were supposed to be covered by a tarpaulin as they were being used for a secret trial. I told him that they were; it was just that the wind was pressing the sheets against the MM38 containers which had a very recognisable shape! When I went home that evening, plastic sheeting had been affixed to the security fence so the launchers could not be seen....

SRJ.
 
SeaslugMk2 said:
timmymagic said:
Bit of a resurrection...

Does anyone recall seeing a pic of the UK's Excalibur Exocet system on Gibraltar. I seem to recall seeing a very grainy pic of it an age ago...
Click to expand...
Many years ago (when I worked at RNAD Gosport) I was driving into work past ASWE and noticed a pair of Exocet launchers facing South over Portsmouth. Later that day I mentioned seeing them to the Exocet Stock Controller. He exploded, saying that they were supposed to be covered by a tarpaulin as they were being used for a secret trial. I told him that they were; it was just that the wind was pressing the sheets against the MM38 containers which had a very recognisable shape! When I went home that evening, plastic sheeting had been affixed to the security fence so the launchers could not be seen....

SRJ.
Click to expand...
Presumably that was pre 85? As it was deployed to Gib from then. The pic I saw was a trailer mounted MM38 container system, not that far removed from the Argentinian lash up used to hit Glamorgan.
 
I'm going to hazard a guess that they were somewhat similar to those shown below:

Image 8-4-21 at 3.28 am.jpeg

Noting however that those shown are actually an Argentine 'lash up' from the Falklands war. Possibly therefore something like this but fixed mount on ground.
 
timmymagic said:
SeaslugMk2 said:
timmymagic said:
Bit of a resurrection...

Does anyone recall seeing a pic of the UK's Excalibur Exocet system on Gibraltar. I seem to recall seeing a very grainy pic of it an age ago...
Click to expand...
Many years ago (when I worked at RNAD Gosport) I was driving into work past ASWE and noticed a pair of Exocet launchers facing South over Portsmouth. Later that day I mentioned seeing them to the Exocet Stock Controller. He exploded, saying that they were supposed to be covered by a tarpaulin as they were being used for a secret trial. I told him that they were; it was just that the wind was pressing the sheets against the MM38 containers which had a very recognisable shape! When I went home that evening, plastic sheeting had been affixed to the security fence so the launchers could not be seen....

SRJ.
Click to expand...
Presumably that was pre 85? As it was deployed to Gib from then. The pic I saw was a trailer mounted MM38 container system, not that far removed from the Argentinian lash up used to hit Glamorgan.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was on Seaslug from 1980 to 1986 and it would have been around the middle of that time.

SRJ.
 
GTX said:
I'm going to hazard a guess that they were somewhat similar to those shown below:

View attachment 654567

Noting however that those shown are actually an Argentine 'lash up' from the Falklands war. Possibly therefore something like this but fixed mount on ground.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware the Excalibur system was a trailer mounted MM38 system as well, not fixed. I believe the intention was for it to be kept in the tunnels and brought out when required. No idea on towing vehicles or seperate control vehicles. Believe targeting information was provided by fixed radars on Gib rather than a mobile radar set up (although on that I could be wrong, but I've never seen pics or details of associated kit). Also I've no idea how many were made, suspect at least 2-3 sets, each consisting of 2x MM38 launchers. Can't imagine the requirement for Gib would have needed more than 4-6 missiles. The RN did have plenty of MM38 launchers and missiles at the time though.

What's really surprising is the lack of photos in the years since...there must have been at least 8 RN personnel deployed there over 11 years in 1-2 year deployments. Would have thought one of them would have taken a pic and posted it online, along with the many thousands of other personnel who have cycled through Gib and potentially seen it.

Or was it developed, then parked up in a tunnel at Gib in case the balloon went up? Personnel to use it being deployed as and when necessary?

Mind you there aren't that many pics of laser dazzler systems or Exactor out there either...
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:

What's really surprising is the lack of photos in the years since...there must have been at least 8 RN personnel deployed there over 11 years in 1-2 year deployments. Would have thought one of them would have taken a pic and posted it online, along with the many thousands of other personnel who have cycled through Gib and potentially seen it.


Not if they're following the rules.;)
Click to expand...
 
GTX said:
timmymagic said:

What's really surprising is the lack of photos in the years since...there must have been at least 8 RN personnel deployed there over 11 years in 1-2 year deployments. Would have thought one of them would have taken a pic and posted it online, along with the many thousands of other personnel who have cycled through Gib and potentially seen it.


Not if they're following the rules.;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Indeed...certainly regarding Exactor....

I do wonder if it Excalibur was parked up from 1990 onwards, its not as if there was any real threat to Gib from 89 onwards.
 
NoBarrelRolls said:
About the Exocet mounting mentioned by @GTX, the Argentinian navy called "ITB", which in Spanish means "Instalación de tiro berreta". "Berreta" is an argentine expression that refers to something very cheap and of low quality. I guess you can translated as "Cheap firing installation".

Here is a very cool article about the genesis of the "ITB" (the article is in Spanish):
https://gacetamarinera.com.ar/especiales/la-ingeniosa-instalacion-de-tiro-berreta-en-malvinas/
Click to expand...
Exactly
NoBarrelRolls
You translated right
 
NoBarrelRolls said:
About the Exocet mounting mentioned by @GTX, the Argentinian navy called "ITB", which in Spanish means "Instalación de tiro berreta". "Berreta" is an argentine expression that refers to something very cheap and of low quality. I guess you can translated as "Cheap firing installation".

Here is a very cool article about the genesis of the "ITB" (the article is in Spanish):
https://gacetamarinera.com.ar/especiales/la-ingeniosa-instalacion-de-tiro-berreta-en-malvinas/
Click to expand...
Thank you NoBarrelRolls, I found this very interesting and it reiterates 'never underestimate your enemy!!'

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
A pic of Excalibur just got posted on Twitter by someone I follow...I won't post it here except as a twitter post as it was posted by another user that they know. It's from the VT brochure for Excalibur, trailer mounted with Type 1006 Radar as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1388111617477517325
View: https://twitter.com/EngageStrategy1/status/1388111617477517325
Click to expand...

You have to say that it wouldn't have killed VT to put it on a truck, and jazz it up a little bit (for demo purposes)...they may have actually got some international sales with it...
 
Naval News said:
New submarine-launched SM40 Exocet missile
At Euronaval 2024, MBDA unveils a new member in the world famous Exocet family of anti-ship missiles. The new variant, designated SM40 by the company, is a cut-down version of the latest ship-launched MM40 Block 3c modified for encapsulated launch from a submarine torpedo tube.
MBDA says the proposed development, which would succeed the legacy SM39 in the Exocet family portfolio, has arisen from discussions with the Direction générale de l'armement and the French Navy, while also reflecting demand from Naval Group for a new sub-launched anti-ship cruise missile to support export submarine sales. According to MBDA, SM40 would adapt the MM40 Block 3c baseline for submarine launch, but introduce design changes in order to use the same encapsulation as SM39 and so reduce development and integration costs. To achieve this, SM40 would marry the Safran TR-40 turbojet engine and avionics package of Block 3c with a shortened airframe so that the weapon can fit inside the torpedo tube launch capsule. The missile wings would also be modified for encapsulation. The smaller airframe reduces fuel capacity relative to the ship-launched MM40 Block 3/3c. However, MBDA believes that SM40 will still achieve a range of 120 km, which is double that of its predecessor. Furthermore, SM40 will maintain the existing SM39 launch envelope, which includes the ability to launch from deep.
[...]
Click to expand...
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/jD9346N0m0Y?si=wz9GDZr_sqFrRZE9

Link:
Code: 
https://youtu.be/jD9346N0m0Y?si=wz9GDZr_sqFrRZE9
 
fightingirish said:
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/jD9346N0m0Y?si=wz9GDZr_sqFrRZE9

Link:
Code: 
https://youtu.be/jD9346N0m0Y?si=wz9GDZr_sqFrRZE9
Click to expand...
"while also reflecting demand from Naval Group for a new sub-launched anti-ship cruise missile to support export submarine sales."

The French can be rather good at joined up thinking...

FC/ASW supersonic and subsonic are supposed to get encapsulated versions for torpedo tube launch...although 'supposed to get' will presumably be based on demand and someone paying for it...apart from the Naval Group export point, this appears to come from a request from the French Navy as well. We know that FC/ASW in its anti shipping guise (presumably the supersonic version as we still know so little about FC/ASW intentions around the 2 missiles) won't arrive until 2034/35, presumably in aerial, surface launched canister or VL versions first with encapsulated bound to be some behind (if someone wants it and pays for it). Seem's a sensible move for the French to develop SM40 given the 10+ year wait for FC/ASW.....

Given the lack of other Western alternatives, with TTL Tomahawk now finished (UK got the last containers, Australia now not getting), JSM still not developed for torpedo launch outside of models at shows and the USN seeming to only dig out some Sub-Harpoon for trials from deep in its stores for some limited trials a few years ago...its not a bad decision at all...
 
timmymagic said:
apart from the Naval Group export point, this appears to come from a request from the French Navy as well
Click to expand...
I bet the demand for more engagement range is closely linked to the use of tube-launched reconnaissance AUVs (such as NG’s own D19, with 100nm+ range on Li-Ion batteries).

The AUV could scout ahead, detect a target of opportunity, send the coordinates back via radio datalink (which would require a small sub launched UAV as the relay… also likely in development), allowing the sub to engage outside of torpedo range via its missiles. Alternatively this could also be related to advances in towed sonar detection ranges, which mean that subs may want to fire a missile if detected too early and still outside of torpedo range.

D19 AUV (Naval Group) here:
www.navalnews.com

Euronaval: French Navy Becomes Launch Customer of Naval Group's D-19T UUV - Naval News

The French Navy (Marine Nationale) is the launch customer of Naval Group's new unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), the D-19. Naval News learned from the French shipbuilder during Euronaval that the French Navy placed an order for an undisclosed number of D-19T anti-submarine warfare (ASW)...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Diodon HP30 Sub-launched micro UAV here:
 
I wonder how the turbojet will be able to start almost immediately after the missile leaves the tube .....
 
zjz said:
I wonder how the turbojet will be able to start almost immediately after the missile leaves the tube .....
Click to expand...

It's the same basic sequence as SM39, which means the canister comes out of the torpedo tube and is propelled by rocket into the air. Once the canister is airborne, the nose cap blows off and the missile is ejected. In SM39, there is already a short but perceptible paise between the missile leaving the capsule and its own rocket motor igniting. Obviously for SM40, the delay is long enough for the turbine to start.
 
TomS said:
It's the same basic sequence as SM39, which means the canister comes out of the torpedo tube and is propelled by rocket into the air. Once the canister is airborne, the nose cap blows off and the missile is ejected. In SM39, there is already a short but perceptible paise between the missile leaving the capsule and its own rocket motor igniting. Obviously for SM40, the delay is long enough for the turbine to start.
Click to expand...
Oh, I missed out the booster stage for the SM40.... In the SM39, the booster and sustainer are packed in the body, and the booster is not jettisonable ..... while in the SM40, the booster needs to be jettisoned before the jet engine kicks in ....
 
zjz said:
Oh, I missed out the booster stage for the SM40.... In the SM39, the booster and sustainer are packed in the body, and the booster is not jettisonable ..... while in the SM40, the booster needs to be jettisoned before the jet engine kicks in ....
Click to expand...

Yep. I actually had not realized that they retained a booster can like MM40 Block 3, but you can see it clearly enough in this still from the MBDA video.

Screenshot_20241107-053806.png

View: https://youtu.be/rHVo65VFMfM?si=rcMDUk_ehSRHCwkT


It's a pretty complicated sequence: the VSM canister holding the missile has its own thrust-vectored rocket motor that propels the canister completely out of the water, then the SM40 has a booster motor that fires, and finally the turbojet kicks in after the booster motor is dropped.

Contrast to Sub-Harpoon, where the canister just relies on buoyancy.
 
Last edited:
zjz said:
I think the VSM limits the length of the SM40+booster, which has to be shorter than the MM40+booster to fit in .....

This makes the SM40 look stubby compared to SM39, which has no booster extension ......
Click to expand...

Yes, they talk about having to cut down the length of the missile itself to fit the submarine canister. Also some changes to the wing shape/fold.
 
I have done some reading up and comparisons .... basically all versions of Exocets differ from one another in shapes, sizes and rockets, with the possibility of different versions of the same generation sharing the same radar, electronics .....

MM38 : rocket boost + sustainer, box canister on surface ship or vehicle
AM39 : rocket sustainer, able to be launched from aircraft or helicopter
SM39 : rocket TVC VSM & rocket boost + sustainer, submarine 21inch tube launch
MM40 (up to Block 2) rocket boost + sustainer, slimmer launcher canister on surface ship or vehicle
MM40 (Block 3/c) : jettison-able rocket booster + turbojet, slimmer launcher canister on surface ship or vehicle
SM40 (with Block 3/c radar) : rocket TVC VSM & jettison-able rocket booster + turbojet, submarine 21inch tube launch
 
Last edited:
In comparison, Harpoon was designed right from the beginning to have a common airframe, differing in the fin foldings and booster .....

AGM-84 : air launch, fixed fins with no booster
RGM-84 : surface ship of vehicle launch, folding fins, with booster
UGM-84 : submarine launch, folding fins, with booster, encapsulated capsule, submarine 21inch tube launch
 
There was not. For the surface-to-surface versions, you go directly from MM38 (entered service in 1975) to the MM40 that entered service in 1981 (and retroactively became the MM40 Block 1 when the Block 2 appeared in the 90s).

'39' is applied only to the air and surfaced launched variants - AM39 was a modified MM38 - shorter and with modified control surfaces to cope with being carried at supersonic speeds. SM39 was actually derived from MM40, and was simply a capsule launched version of that missile.
 
I would have thought that they should renamed MM40 Block 3 to another totally new designation since the change in propulsion makes it a very different beast ......
 
zjz said:
I wonder how the turbojet will be able to start almost immediately after the missile leaves the tube .....
Click to expand...
Remember that a 21" torpedo is impulsed out at about 50 knots, there's a lot of residual energy to get the launch capsule broached and probably completely out of the water (I've never seen a sub-harpoon launch, so guessing a bit)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that a 21" torpedo is impulsed out at about 50 knots, there's a lot of residual energy to get the launch capsule broached and probably completely out of the water (I've never seen a sub-harpoon launch, so guessing a bit)
Click to expand...

I don't why the UGM-84A capsule couldn't have the same Mk-106 launch-booster used by the UGM-109 Tomahawk using the VLA's Mk-210 Mod 0 guidance computer to control it.
 
NMaude said:
I don't why the UGM-84A capsule couldn't have the same Mk-106 launch-booster used by the UGM-109 Tomahawk using the VLA's Mk-210 Mod 0 guidance computer to control it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the SubHarpoon has a booster, but I'm not sure which booster it is.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom