Exocets have kill switches …

[PakFactor]

Agreed, but rest assured all modern weapons systems, regardless of origin, have similar "features".

Indeed, was reading an article few days back John Deer tractors the Russians were taking back home stopped working due to something similar - kill switch - they just wouldn't turn on and trying to find a work around to get the machines started. Lol.

 

[VCheng]

Indeed, was reading an article few days back John Deer tractors the Russians were taking back home stopped working due to something similar - kill switch - they just wouldn't turn on and trying to find a work around to get the machines started. Lol.

As I have said all along, they are there, like it or not.

 

[khail007]

Why would anyone pay a penny for a missile which does not works in war time

Rightly said, if a weapon priced at hundreds and thousands of dollars not going to work at a time of requirement then make a wooden replica of it at fractions of the price tag and display it in exercises and wars - budget saved and issues solved.

Our main and hostile enemy is India and if there is a string on a purchased weapon that it is not to be used against India - those who still plan and buy it to be tried under 'Article 6'.

 

[Foinikas]

Kill switches would kill sales,it would be very risky for them to implement such a thing even if they hid it very well.

 

[Gripen9]

Are they still kept in wartime reserve, or the rounds are past their useful life too??
Also, w/o the Exocet, the Agave radar has no apparent purpose, so is it also removed to make way for more stores??

The missiles technically belonged to Pak Navy and have been returned to their inventory. Missiles go through regular maintenance and sub systems replaced. I believe we still have AIM-9Ps from 1960s.
The Agave equipped Mirage VPA3 were also bought using PN budget in 1978. The radars are still on the aircraft but now their role is stand off interdiction using REKs. I believe they are the only non rose sqn left other than the newly form No 50 sqn. And should be the first ones to retire.
If was is foisted on us today, yes you can see them reverting to their anti ship role if we do not have enough C802 / CM400AKG left or No 2 sqn has suffered substantial losses or are need in other theaters.

 

[Gripen9]

What are your sources? You basically said that not a single Exocet worked. Is that some kind of tale only a few know?

Second,this is a post by the telegraph,posted by Ali_Baba who will rush to discredit everything French and praise everything British.

For all we know,that's all bullshit there.

I have read up on the subject growing up. I had a few books from the 80s.

HMS Sheffield

HMS Sheffield (D80)

HMS Sheffield was the second Royal Navy ship to be named after the city of Sheffield in Yorkshire. She was a Type 42 Guided Missile Destroyer laid down by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering at Barrow-in-Furness on 15 January 1970, launched on 10 June 1971 and commissioned on 16 February 1975...

military-history.fandom.com

The Exocet missile which hit Sheffield did not detonate, but the missile severed the high-pressure fire main on board. The resultant fire caused by burning propellant ignited diesel oil from the ready-use tanks in the engine room, and other inflammable materials used in the ship's construction. These fires burned unchecked for a number of days after the ship was abandoned.

USS Stark

The Attack on USS Stark at 30

On May 17, 1987, USS Stark (FFG-31) was on patrol when it was struck by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War.

news.usni.org

“The first missile punched through the hull near the port bridge wing, eight feet above the waterline. It bored a flaming hole through berthing spaces, the post office, and the ship’s store, spewing rocket propellant along its path. Burning at 3,500 degrees, the weapon ground to a halt in a corner of the chiefs’ quarters, and failed to explode,” wrote Brad Peniston in his book No Higher Honor from the Naval institute Press.

“The second missile, which hit five feet farther forward, detonated as designed. The fire burned for almost a day, incinerating the crew’s quarters, the radar room, and the combat information center.”

Atlantic Conveyor

SS Atlantic Conveyor

Atlantic Conveyor was a British merchant navy ship, registered in Liverpool, that was requisitioned during the Falklands War. She was hit on 25 May 1982 by two Argentine air-launched AM39 Exocet missiles, killing 12 sailors. Atlantic Conveyor sank whilst under tow on 28 May 1982. The wrecksite...

military-history.fandom.com

On 25 May 1982 (the same day as the loss of HMS Coventry) Atlantic Conveyor was hit by two[3] AM39 Air Launched Exocet missiles fired by a two Argentine Navy Super Étendard jet fighters. The mission was led by Corvette Captain Roberto Curilovic, (call sign 'Tito') flying Super Etendard 0753/3-A-203, and his wingman, Warship Lieutenant Julio Barraza, (call sign 'Leo') flying in 0754/3-A-204.[4] Both Exocets struck Atlantic Conveyor on the port quarter of the ship. Some sources assert that the warheads exploded after penetrating the ship's hull,[5] others do not.[6] Due to the presence of both fuel and ammunition that were stored below deck, the incendiary effect as a result of unburnt propellant from the missiles was the of cause an uncontrollable fire. When the fire had burnt out, the ship was boarded but nothing was recovered.

Pak Navy's was used in an exercise witnessed by my father a PAF officer and the missile failed to detonate. The target vessel had to be destroyed by good old fashioned 5 inch guns.

Buddy I am not even discussing kill switches, I am just recalling the number of times Exocet had been used in anger and the results. As @PanzerKiel had noted, even when the warhead fails to detonate, the kinetic impact and or fire damaged caused by the missile motor is enough to render a medium size warship out of action.

 

[Tipu7]

But they do go  boom in test firing, right??

Before going boom, its necessary to hit the target - always.

 

[White privilege]

Before going boom, its necessary to hit the target - always.

By going boom I meant that helpless ship that is used as the .It does appear the missile hits the target in the videos released by the Navy.What is the hit% of Exocet in Pakistan service??

 

[khansaheeb]

France urged to come clean on Exocet ‘kill switches’ that could have saved British sailors’ lives

MPs call for inquiry into claims secrets about anti-ship missiles that killed 46 servicemen in Falklands were deliberately withheld

www.telegraph.co.uk

Nasty French.

 

[sparten]

Punching a simple hole into any warship normally is enough to force it to stop combat operations and extricate to safely.
Moreover, doctrine calls for a atleast two, possibly a Salvo to be fired at a single target, to cater for its size, CIWS etc.

Our missile craft will fire 2 salvos of 3 missiles each.

 

[S10]

I believe Iraq bought a bunch of printers from US before the first Gulf War in 1990 for its military. They all stopped functioning the moment US military action started.

Do you know why US is spending every waking moment smearing Chinese tech companies? Because they're projections of what Americans are doing.

 

[WotTen]

Punching a simple hole into any warship normally is enough to force it to stop combat operations and extricate to safely.
Moreover, doctrine calls for a atleast two, possibly a Salvo to be fired at a single target, to cater for its size, CIWS etc.

Then it makes sense to create MIRV-like capability into regular missiles. A long range missile which is nothing more than a 'mothership' that breaks up and releases 3-4 smaller missiles upon reaching the target zone.

 

[chinasun]

Buying weapons cannot become a military power. Claiming to be the third largest military power in the world or the number one military power in Europe is just two jokes. You have to make your own weapons.

 

[Tomcats]

Indeed, was reading an article few days back John Deer tractors the Russians were taking back home stopped working due to something similar - kill switch - they just wouldn't turn on and trying to find a work around to get the machines started. Lol.

A more realistic scenario is that they were probably sabotaged before being abandoned, something which every military does to prevent them from getting into enemy hands as usable equipment. Alternatively, it could be because Russia does not have the logistical capacity to maintain tractors with different components, a plethora of reasons really. I find a 'kill switch' at the bottom of that list.

 

[WotTen]

A more realistic scenario is that they were probably sabotaged before being abandoned, something which every military does to prevent them from getting into enemy hands as usable equipment. Alternatively, it could be because Russia does not have the logistical capacity to maintain tractors with different components, a plethora of reasons really. I find a 'kill switch' at the bottom of that list.

A 'kill switch' in tractors seems a bit farfetched, I agree.

What's next? a 'kill switch' in my toaster oven? Oh, the horror!

P.S. Although, with this IoT craze becoming an obsession, anything is possible. They want to turn everything into a freaking node on the internet!