Exocet missile - operational use

S

sagallacci

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
14 January 2009
Messages
96
Reaction score
10
I know this is the unbuilt/project/etc group, but you guys seem to have everything about everything, so I'm asking. I want to build a large scale (1/12 or so) cutaway display model of the Exocet AM39 for a Falklands War display and have found only a very few small images of anything. The info/image need not include every bit of wiring or nuts and bolts, but enough to give a good impression of the technical higgery-poakery within. Thanks.
 
Why is there no Exocet delivery to Ukraine? The missiles comes into Naval, coastal and aerial (helo and aircraft) delivery mode. It would seem as a perfect addition to French arms delivery there, with a tremendous catchy effect on the media attention to dilute a bit the shameful rethoric around the present gov (actually the previous one!) seemingly dragging his feet.

View: https://youtu.be/sXrhk4zqFEM
 
I am sure that the oil&gas embargo by the EU will force a change in narratives. With the surge in prices, Europeans are going to ask for more effectiveness in ending the conflict. It wouldn't make sense to tame the flow of weapon while Europe economy is the easiest casualty for most to identify with.

It has been a conflict where energy was the grand strategic bargain. Not soldiers or civilians lives. More Russian ships sunk won't alter the equation much today. It would also dig a wedge deeper inside Russian confidence toward their elite.
 
TomcatViP said:
More Russian ships sunk won't alter the equation much today.
Click to expand...

It would have an effect as the Black Sea fleet would no longer be able to blockade Ukrainian ports meaning that Ukraine can start exporting grain which a number of foreign countries are dependent on and they could also stop the Russian theft of grain too not to mention it means more money for Ukraine to spend on weapons.
 
@NMaude : this exactly what I had in mind. The won't alter is related to the offensive language of the Russian regime, their threat and potentially aggressive posture toward NATO countries.

Think also that given the geography, interdicting the area around Crimea would force Russia to move more supplies along the band of territory their are holding, putting them at risk doing so and rebalancing their advantages in hardware and troops on which they are counting for the new phase in this conflict.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Think also that given the geography, interdicting the area around the Crimea would force Russia to move more supplies along the band of territory their are holding
Click to expand...

If Ukraine can successfully neutralise the Black Sea fleet (More likely now since Denmark appears to have given to them a land-launched Harpoon missile system for the Ukrainian army to operate) then that means they can probably use what naval assets they have to destroy the illegally constructed bridge connecting Crimea to Russia. Destroying it would cut off a major avenue of logistics support for the Russian army there.
 
I don't see how you figure that could work. With Crimea, Donbas and all of the coastline in between under Russian control, the waters east of Sevastopol are pretty much outside Ukrainian AShM coverage. Here the Black Sea Fleet can operate with impunity, and will totally outmatch the small patrol boats Ukraine retains at this point, nevermind Russian air power. And the missile threat works both ways: Russian Bal and Bastion complexes arrayed in the above Russian-held areas are going to make mincemeat of Ukrainian vessels.

With Kerch bridge currently 220km from the closest Ukrainian-controlled territory (near Tokmak) and still 130km from the closest points pre-Feb.24, the options are severely limited. Unless the Azov Sea coast is re-taken, a jury-rigged land-attack Neptune (which would have to successfully traverse dozens of kilometres of land bristling with Russian air defences) is pretty much the only way. Even if the coastline came back under Ukrainian control, a Tochka-U strike (if Ukraine has any left by now) is tenuous without pushing into Crimea, and at that point an air strike would probably be a better bet anyway.

EDIT: I will say though that I find it curious no attempt (either by Tochka or Su-24M) was made while the opportunity still existed in the opening days. Who cares about Millerovo AB if you could sever that supply link instead?
 
Last edited:
A bridge is about the easiest target to attack with any sort of cruise missile: known location, known weak points. A salvo of half a dozen missiles well timed and with intelligently chosen waypoints should be enough.
Heck, even old-fashioned ballistic missiles should be able to do the job.
 
Now that a turbojet version of the Exocet is in production I wonder if any thought has been given to a ramjet powered version?
 
NMaude said:
Now that a turbojet version of the Exocet is in production I wonder if any thought has been given to a ramjet powered version?
Click to expand...

That supposedly a "new" missile. There was "ANS" or "Anti Navaire Supersonique" program. But that program seems forgotten.
 
I saw this random video of a MM38 live firing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJP6U1_RwgA


At 4:10, I could see the launch of the Exocet almost hitting the sea surface. This raises some questions I have :

1. Are the launcher inclination angles fixed for all anti-ship systems?
2. Some launchers are fixed facing forward, while others are fixed facing to the port or starboard side. What determines the direction?
3. I don't think there are many anti-ship missiles that are VL, especially in Western/NATO. Only ones comes to mind are Russian Klub (and its Chinese equivalent). Why is it so?
 
Abstract
There are innovations at the technical level that have their impact at the
tactical one. When they appear even if they are not sufficient to change the
outcome of a conflagration, they obligate us to rethink the use of specific
means, creating a potential “game-changer.” That is the case of an operation
called UKA-UKA. The Argentine navy decided to dismantle an Exocet missile
launcher “Mar-Mar 38” improvising a rustic, albeit effective coastal defense
that seriously oversaw HMS Glamorgan, a destroyer of the Royal Navy, causing a change in the operating conditions of ships approaching the shores
of the Falkland Islands. The development came too late to have a marked
effect on the war. It should be noted that in terms of creativity, moments of
tension, crisis and conflict can also be excellent catalysts for the “eureka”
event, which shows that creativity is not limited to certain conditions that are
considered Optimal. On the contrary, creativity appears in situations that are
far from being considered optimal in the military world

 
IIRC the Argentinians had only five Exocets in stock when they invaded the Falklands and France very quickly cutoff their access to any technical help.
 
NMaude said:
IIRC the Argentinians had only five Exocets in stock when they invaded the Falklands and France very quickly cutoff their access to any technical help.
Click to expand...

5 air launched only, but they had more surface launched missiles. The missile that hit Glamorgan was a naval box launcher on a trailer, delivered by air to Stanley on a C-130 during the war, some parts of an old searchlight system was incorporated for power.
 
NMaude said:
I was under the impression they only had the five air-launched Exocets.
Click to expand...
They had surface-launched Exocets aboard most of their destroyers and frigates. Plenty of mounts available to pull one and ship it into Stanley by air. The two Type 42s with Exocet sailing with the Belgrano was arguably the major threat from the Belgrano task group, not the Belgrano itself.
 
DWG said:
They had surface-launched Exocets aboard most of their destroyers and frigates. Plenty of mounts available to pull one and ship it into Stanley by air. The two Type 42s with Exocet sailing with the Belgrano was arguably the major threat from the Belgrano task group, not the Belgrano itself.
Click to expand...
The Argentinian Type 42s were with the carrier, Belgrano was escorted by a pair of Allen M. Sunmers.
 
zjz said:
At 4:10, I could see the launch of the Exocet almost hitting the sea surface.
Click to expand...
Probably not the case here, but I seem to remember some talk about how oceans lay above underseas terrain---and that...rather than maintaining a constant sea level over them...there was in fact a bit of a bulge over shelfs seamounts and such.
 
publiusr said:
Probably not the case here, but I seem to remember some talk about how oceans lay above underseas terrain---and that...rather than maintaining a constant sea level over them...there was in fact a bit of a bulge over shelfs seamounts and such.
Click to expand...
I thought radar altimeter measures height above sea surface??
 
DWG said:
They had surface-launched Exocets aboard most of their destroyers and frigates. Plenty of mounts available to pull one and ship it into Stanley by air. The two Type 42s with Exocet sailing with the Belgrano was arguably the major threat from the Belgrano task group, not the Belgrano itself.
Click to expand...
Apparently only Hercules was fitted, Santisima Trinidad had the area prepared for them but they were never installed.

Belgrano's alleged Exocet installation was also just mockups.
 
timmymagic said:
Belgrano's alleged Exocet installation was also just mockups.
Click to expand...

Even if they had been real they'd have been no use against HMS conquerer (An SSN) and the two Mk-VIII torpedoes that sunk the Belgrano (Ironically both the torpedoes and the cruiser were of late 1930s vintage).
 
Last edited:
I went in search of photos of interior of the bulky, over-engineered MM.38 box launcher but had little success except a single photo from Flight, 10 Aug 1972.

The box was aluminium-alloy, with an internal overhead rail ( called the launching ramp ) and explosively-opened hinged front and rear doors. The doors were also latched for routine servicing but ideally the box was to be treated as a sealed unit and only returned to stores for servicing every 12 months.

To launch, the missile in its box swung-down on two points of suspension from the launching-ramp and the doors blew open, hinging downwards. The booster then fired and the suspension lugs slid along the ramp. It all seems overly complex. The ramp, suspension lugs and locking mechanism were made by Morfax in the UK and once fired the entire box with all its precision-machined parts was dumped overboard.

Initially Aerospatiale had planned to mount the launchers on gyroscopically-levelled platforms, but thankfully dropped the idea or else the RN would probably have removed even more gun turrets... The operational configuration used ship-mounted gyros and accelerometers to calculate the pitch and roll of the launcher at the moment of firing, feeding this into the missile's autopilot.

Thankfully when MM.40 came along it fitted into a neat tube launcher.

MM.38_launcher_Flight_1972_2065.jpeg
 
NMaude said:
That's very wasteful!, how much one of these launch boxes cost?
Click to expand...

Haven't found a figure but the comparative simplicity of the Harpoon launcher was reported to be an attraction for ship-builders. MM.38 had a lower limit of 100 tonnes displacement due to top-weight.

Found another launcher photo in AvWeek, 04 Dec1972. Launch ramp was a substantial structure.
 

Attachments

  • MM.38_AvWeek_19721204_010.JPEG
    MM.38_AvWeek_19721204_010.JPEG
    174.2 KB · Views: 14
NMaude said:
That's very wasteful!, how much one of these launch boxes cost?
Click to expand...
Very sensible! The last thing you want on a warship is useless weight high in the ship. And once the missile's gone, the box is useless.
 
Kiltonge said:
To launch, the missile in its box swung-down on two points of suspension from the launching-ramp and the doors blew open, hinging downwards. The booster then fired and the suspension lugs slid along the ramp. It all seems overly complex. The ramp, suspension lugs and locking mechanism were made by Morfax in the UK and once fired the entire box with all its precision-machined parts was dumped overboard.
Click to expand...
Here’s a video of an MM38 launch (from t=14s)… doesn’t look like anything is dumped overboard except the locking mechanism?

View: https://youtu.be/n9PJa0BvCLc?si=keMBcKhJptWi4tpN
 
H_K said:
Here’s a video of an MM38 launch (from t=14s)… doesn’t look like anything is dumped overboard except the locking mechanism?
Click to expand...
In peacetime you'd want to take it home and refurbish it for a new missile. Wartime priorities would be different, but if you want rid of the box overboard I'd anticipate it taking a fairly beefy winch and a bunch of matelots.
 
NMaude said:
Even if they had been real they'd have been no use against HMS conquerer (An SSN) and the two Mk-VIII torpedoes that sunk the Belgrano (Ironically both the torpedoes and the cruiser were of late 1930s vintage).
Click to expand...
No - but had the CONQUEROR not sunk the BELGRANO, they'd have been very useful against surface ships.
DWG said:
In peacetime you'd want to take it home and refurbish it for a new missile. Wartime priorities would be different, but if you want rid of the box overboard I'd anticipate it taking a fairly beefy winch and a bunch of matelots.
Click to expand...
I can imagine someone might have thought about RASing a loaded box launcher... I just thought about it. And I'm scared.

But it's the sort of silly idea someone might have. If you wanted to try it, you'd need to get rid of the old one first. Whether over the side or back-RASing to the supply ship for reuse.
 
Few more details about MM.38. The suspension lugs were locked prior to launch to prevent the missile swaying as it slid up the rail - yet more mechanisms. Once installed, the missile also had an elapsed-time counter that could be queried through the diagnostic system to determine if any components were time-expired.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom