Exocet

[AS.12]

According to The Boys and Girls Book of World Knowledge:

Of NATO's inventory of such missiles, it is the only variant that performs a terminal bunt and weave manoeuvre.

Which is pretty good going really.

Hi,

I'm still trying to pin-down when terminal manoeuvring was introduced; it was some time after Mark 1 Mod 5, and was allegedly a software tweak developed by the Swedes and then licensed back to Kongsberg.

Certainly it wasn't a standard capability for Penguin prior to the mid-1980s.

Re: Harpoon.  The first terminal attack mode enabled for Harpoon was a pitch-and-bunt so that it was diving down on a surfaced submarine target; one of the key drivers for its development was to hit Echo and Juliette class SSGNs as they prepared to launch their Shaddocks.  Pitch-and-bunt remains a programmed capability and can be selected before launch.  It would also be useful against low-freeboard targets like speedboats and skiffs.

Hope that helps

AB

[AS.12]

Attack profiles & homing for Penguin variants, as I currently understand:

Mk I: IOC 1972. Boost-coast propulsion, IR terminal homing, ballistic approach

Mk I Mod 7: As Mk I but refurbished with IR seeker from Mk II Mod 3

Mk II: IOC 1978. Boost-coast, PEAB active radar homing, pre-programmed course changes up to 90 degrees, laser altimeter, ballistic approach

Mk II Mod 3: As Mk II but with IR homing

Mk II Mod 5: IOC after 1988. Mk II update with "improved seeker".  Still active radar?  I think this is the Mod where the Swedes introduced the terminal manoeuvres

Mk II Mod 7: IOC 1984 ( ? ).  Air-launched, per Mk II Mod 3, programmable target selection, post-impact bunt.

Mk III: IOC 1987. Powered all the way to target, new warhead, IR homing, radar altimeter, sea-skimming approach

AGM-119: As Mk II Mod 7 but with Mk III seeker and warhead, revised wing folding for SH-60 mounting.  No idea why they reverted to boot-coast for this!

[Mr.Creak]

Mk II Mod 7: IOC 1984 ( ? ).  Air-launched, per Mk II Mod 3, programmable target selection, post-impact bunt.

Er, post-impact bunt?
How would that work?

[AS.12]

Er, post-impact bunt?
How would that work?

*cough*

Well-spotted sir!  I did of course mean post-impact grunt 

"Terminal bunt" would be the correct term, which in Penguin Mk II would have been an interesting example of energy management given that it was unpowered by then and late into its glidepath.

[Daryl J.]

So rather than a Javelin, the Exocet could ride beneath a Draken since the Danes had strike Drakes yes?

[AS.12]

So rather than a Javelin, the Exocet could ride beneath a Draken since the Danes had strike Drakes yes?

Unfortunately I don't think the Draken has any hardpoints stressed for the weight of an Exocet; even the fuselage and inner-wing could only loft 500 kg.

If it *could* lift > 500 kg then a better option might be Kormoran.  Exocet was an advancement on that missile ( which Nord called AS.34 ) mainly in respect of its tactical data processing; the fire-control loaded not only the basics of target location / speed / bearing but also information on how to approach and select the target.  Kormoran was more of an "old-school" weapon in that it accepted basic target location info, so could be pre-programmed before take-off.  That'd be a better match for the radar-less attack Draken, I think.

Kormoran  also defaulted to passive radar homing and only went active if nothing was emitting.

Quick update re: Exocet.  I don't know when the tactical info interface was opened to customers beyond the UK and France; they initially were the only operators with access to it. For everyone else Exocet was functionally similar to Kormoran ( fly there, attack something ).  This was one reason Exocet gained a rather poor reputation for homing on anything at all.

[Pellson]

So rather than a Javelin, the Exocet could ride beneath a Draken since the Danes had strike Drakes yes?

Unfortunately I don't think the Draken has any hardpoints stressed for the weight of an Exocet; even the fuselage and inner-wing could only loft 500 kg.

Well, actually SAAB and the Swedish Air Force did do some redesign work on the Draken to see if the JAS 39 Gripen could be delayed or deferred altogether by modifying the existing large fleelt of J35F Drakens to a fighter-bomber configuration. In this work, studies and some design was performed that aimed to use the Draken as a maritime strike aircraft, using the SAAB RBS 15 (follow-on development of Rb04 and used on the Gripen). In this configuration, the missiles were to be hung under the air intakes, on the same spot that was utilised for Sidewinders on the J35J and J35OE variants.

Everything went rather well, actually, and the only aerodynamic compensation found to be needed was a slight increase of fin area realized by adding a small finlet on top of the existing pitot housing. The main issues preventing full scale development turned out to be the very limited ground clearance with hung missile (44 mm) and the limited radar on the Draken. Both could probably have been corrected had not the decision to continue with the Gripen been taken.

The fighter-bomber Draken was coded J35 Mod 4 by SAAB, but for the time being, I cannot sem to find any pics on the Internet. There are however drawings in books I have.

[Daryl J.]

So we'll rule out the Draken as an Exocet carrier, even in Mod 35 level 4 configuration.

Rafale? 

[AS.12]

... In this work, studies and some design was performed that aimed to use the Draken as a maritime strike aircraft, using the SAAB RBS 15 (follow-on development of Rb04 and used on the Gripen). In this configuration, the missiles were to be hung under the air intakes, on the same spot that was utilised for Sidewinders on the J35J and J35OE variants.

Interesting!  Thank you.

In my heart I secretly wish the Gripen had been deferred; it really doesn't seem to be a "proper"  SAAB.

Rb 04 is a fascinating weapon and very Swedishly secretive.  Early variants seemed like a refinement of the Bat ASM used by the US Navy. The 04E variant had the same seeker as Kormoran, at least initially, as we learned when the manufacturer blabbed about the sale.  I wonder if that would have been a better choice for the conjectured Norwegian scenario?  Not quite as smart as Exocet, but long-ranged and powerful.

A Sea Vixen with a couple of Rb 04s...

[Daryl J.]

We Scandihooves know how to keep mum.

Yes...the Sea Vixen and the Rb 04x is right where I was leaning after learning the Javelin would be a rough ride.

I may put the Exocet somewhere else.   

[PR19_Kit]

A Sea Vixen with a couple of Rb 04s...

....or a Scimitar with four of them? 

[Daryl J.]

Quote from: AS.12 on Today at 08:45:58 PM
A Sea Vixen with a couple of Rb 04s...

....or a Scimitar with four of them? 

If I had the funds, I'd personally pay for Hornby's to tool that up in both scales. 

[rickshaw]

A Sea Vixen with a couple of Rb 04s...

....or a Scimitar with four of them? 

Is there enough wingspan on a Scimitar to fit them?  They have a hefty wingspan of their own, afterall and you need clearance.

[Weaver]

There were a number of proposals for Scimitars with small radars and either one or two seats: one of those would be a good fit for a couple of Exocets.

Now there's a thought: I wonder if you could use one of those Hunter T.8M conversions to make a 2-seat radar-equipped Scimitar....? 

[The Wooksta!]

IIRC, the two seat Scimitar canopy looked more like that of the Lightning T55.  I'd go for a standard Matchbox two seat nose as a basis because it's inaccurate for a Hunter anyway.