Exocet Missile Developments

Scott Kenny said:
I'm pretty sure the SubHarpoon has a booster
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to the launch booster attached to the UGM-84 to launch it from 21" launch-capsule but seperate booster (The Mk-106 used on the UGM-109 when it went into service) attached to the 21" launch-capsule itself just like the VSM motor for the sub-launched SM-38 variant of the Exocet.

Scott Kenny said:
but I'm not sure which booster it is.
Click to expand...

The R/UGM-84 used the A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-propellant rocket booster which had thrust of 12000 lb for 2.9 sec.
 
The Sub-Harpoon uses the same booster as surface launched version....

The difference between Exocet VSM and Sub-Harppon capsule is that the former has a rocket propelled TVC for the underwater phase, while the Sub-Harpoon capsule is un-powered that relies on buoyancy to "float up and broach" the water surface .....

Some discussions on Harpoon here :
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/about-the-harpoon-block-1d.39311/
 
Forest Green said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...res-exocet-at-land-target-for-the-first-time/
Click to expand...
The first photo shows a vertical dive, while the lower-left photo shows otherwise .... could be the perspective and view of the camera angles?

Exocet-Land-Attack-1024x576.png.webp
 
zjz said:
The first photo shows a vertical dive, while the lower-left photo shows otherwise .... could be the perspective and view of the camera angles?

Exocet-Land-Attack-1024x576.png.webp
Click to expand...
Looks like a perspective trick on the first pair of photos; the second camera is facing at right angles to the first so captures the actual impact angle.
 
Cthell said:
Looks like a perspective trick on the first pair of photos; the second camera is facing at right angles to the first so captures the actual impact angle.
Click to expand...
Yes, in the first photo the second camera is filming from the righthand side, from where that white streak rises towards the peak of the cliff.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
An interesting documentary but it's blighted by what is clearly an AI narrator with a number of mispronunciations such as "Exo A" and "Exo39" for the Exocet but the howler that takes the cake is calling Margaret Thatcher "Margaret Tater".
Click to expand...
I was able to filter all the "mistakes", "inaccuracies" and "noises" as I am somewhat familar with the history of the EXOCET since I had been reading up on it .... thought the video has some cool clips from the Aerospatiale days which I enjoyed ....
 
TomS said:
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.

View attachment 747046

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.
Click to expand...
I am reading that the SM39 VSM is only 5.8m long.... some news outlet put the SM40 VSM to be the same, that is 5.8m long ....

But from the video still of the SM40 as shown above, the VSM appears longer, which makes sense as there is additional length to cater for the booster ...... so I am skeptical of the 5.8m quoted for the SM40 VSM ......
 
zjz said:
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 ......
Click to expand...
Indeed. as MM38 was a 38km range missile , why not designating it as MM180?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom