Flying fish with a deadly bite: naval forces await third-generation Exocet

Jane's ^ | 15 April 2009 | Richard Scott

[sukhoi-30mki]

Flying fish with a deadly bite: naval forces await third-generation Exocet

By Richard Scott 15 April 2009

There are occasions where an event in military history becomes inextricably linked to the impact of a specific weapon or equipment. For example, public recognition of the Exocet anti-ship missile will forever be associated with the events that took place in the South Atlantic on 4 May 1982. On that day, two AM39 Exocet missiles were launched from Argentine Navy Super Etendard strike aircraft against UK Royal Navy ships deployed to retake the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands.

Although ravaged by fire, the hulk of Sheffield remained afloat and was taken in tow in an effort to effect a salvage. However, in deteriorating weather, the vessel began to ship water through the missile entry hole, leading it to develop an increasing list to starboard. Eventually Sheffield rolled over and sank on the morning of 10 May.

Now, four decades after engineering development of the original MM38 surface-to-surface guided weapon (SSGW) began, MBDA is on the cusp of delivering the first production examples of a new-generation-Exocet which, whilst recognisably of the same lineage, will afford anti-surface warfare and land attack capabilities far removed from those of its antecedent. At the same time, it has begun to study further enhancements to keep the weapon operationally effective and internationally competitive well into the 21st century.

The French Navy plans to undertake a first shipborne firing of MM40 Block 3 from one of the two Horizon frigates (depending on ship availability) in the third quarter of 2009,

[sukhoi-30mki]

[Perdogg]

What about the ‘Sunburn’?

[Little Ray]

This ain’t nuthin compared to BRAMOS or those big, supersonic Soviet, er, Russian anti-ship missiles.

I have always wondered why the USN dinked about with itty-bitty Harpoons instead of designing real ship-killers.

[sukhoi-30mki]

The Exocet and its cousins still have a niche-they are far lighter and more versatile and can be re-targeted more easily.

[sukhoi-30mki]

How many ships, aircraft or subs can carry those big Russian weapons?? Besides, only a few countries can affosrd the target designation capabilities that are needed for such systems.

[buckalfa]

Despite the sophisticated anti missile weaponry available on US Navy ships, makes one wonder if the era of carrier battlegroups is coming to an end. The thought of a pirate group, buying a sophisticated missile, then provoking an incident to draw a Navy ship in is scary. Especially since the CIC is dead set against spending money on new technology to keep our armed forces ahead in the tech game.

[Fred Hayek]

Is this going to be the revival of the old ANF design? It was cancelled about 15 years ago, supposed to be an air breather as opposed to a solid fuel, longer range than the Exocet at the time, and supersonic.

[Little Ray]

You have a point. The big, powerful anti-ship missiles are sort of a substitute for an air wing. And I doubt you could sling the darn things on a F/A-18.
Still, if I’m going to field cruisers and destroyers I’d like a real missile, not a dinky toy. Look at the Slava - they carry 16 decent sized cruise missiles.
And WE can afford them...