Half a world, and half a lifetime away.

[Wills2]

Last Visit said:

Programme on this evening at 9pm Channel 4 to mark the 40th anniversary that might be worth watching for those with an interest in the war.

I found that very interesting, especially the bit about the SAS getting kit under the counter (sat phones) from the US and that others had to lie to a senior officer to get operations that needed to happen to happen and them tell him afterwards that there was no radar...

Fascinating insights.

[Cfnteabag]

moosepig said:

Best thread on PH in the 18 years I've been on here. Thanks, OP, and everyone else who has contributed.

Interesting documentary last night with Ben Fogle telling the "forgotten" story of Naval Party 8901, a story that clearly needed telling. I don't think it was so much "forgotten" as "never properly told before".

There is a really interesting book about them, I believe it is called the first casualty or similar. About how their role was really downplayed and they were told to keep to the official line of surrendering with barely a fight.

[C n C]

Cfnteabag said:

moosepig said:

Interesting documentary last night with Ben Fogle telling the "forgotten" story of Naval Party 8901, a story that clearly needed telling. I don't think it was so much "forgotten" as "never properly told before".

There is a really interesting book about them, I believe it is called the first casualty or similar. About how their role was really downplayed and they were told to keep to the official line of surrendering with barely a fight.

For anyone that missed it, this is available on catch up - ITV hub here.

[FiF]

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

[dukeboy749r]

I was 15 at the time and since this year is the 40th, I am especially interested in the collective stories that folks have kindly posted.

I am sorry to focus on one particular individual, but I learnt the other day that a beer company are going to commemorate his actions with a label:

https://phelmets.wixsite.com/mysite/sgt-ian-mckay-...

In addition, Doncaster Air Museum (who knew?!) is unveiling a bench to both Sgt McKay and a 2 Para Tom (and South Yorkshire lad), Steve Illingworth on the 15th May at 11am.

I joined up one year after the Falkland's war ended, aged 16.

Ian was my b-i-l and I have a reprint of the picture of him assaulting the Argentian position upon which he dies, in my workroom.

Seeing him every day like that never removes the desire to have welcomed him home.

Edited by dukeboy749r on Wednesday 4th May 17:15

[FiF]

At the time Mrs F worked in the same office as Freda, Ian's Mum. Still recalls that day when the news was delivered.

[dukeboy749r]

FiF said:

At the time Mrs F worked in the same office as Freda, Ian's Mum. Still recalls that day when the news was delivered.

I caught up yesterday with another ex 3 Para lad (Falkland's vet) who used to go and see Freda a lot.

Freda was a tough, no extremely strong, lady. She outlived all three of her sons, Graham, Neil and Ian.

It was very hard at her funeral, but so many 1 Para blokes came along she would have been chuffed.

[98elise]

FiF said:

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

Sounds like bks. How would the manufacturer operate the "kill switch" from 8000 miles away?

I've been on an Exocet operation/maintenance team in the RN and there wasn't anything required from the manufacturer to fire them.

[FiF]

Reading between the lines suspect it's more a suggestion of a specific way to cause the missile to miss the target rather than deactivate completely. They're prattling on about specific chaff / decoy strategies. For sure I dunno the truth.

Agree with your point, in those days there was probably no way a missile could be disabled remotely from home though.

[Hill92]

FiF said:

Reading between the lines suspect it's more a suggestion of a specific way to cause the missile to miss the target rather than deactivate completely. They're prattling on about specific chaff / decoy strategies. For sure I dunno the truth.

Agree with your point, in those days there was probably no way a missile could be disabled remotely from home though.

Even that doesn't really make sense as the Royal Navy operated Exocets and ought to have known how to defend against them from Thursday War experience.

[98elise]

FiF said:

Reading between the lines suspect it's more a suggestion of a specific way to cause the missile to miss the target rather than deactivate completely. They're prattling on about specific chaff / decoy strategies. For sure I dunno the truth.

Agree with your point, in those days there was probably no way a missile could be disabled remotely from home though.

If it could be disabled in flight then it would be a system feature.

Given its a passive sea skimmer you don't really have a strategy for chaff, as soon as you detect it you fire chaff and hope it works!

[FiF]

From the other piece that I didn't link as wrongly assumed if folks read one they'd read the other here

As said earlier, I don't know, could be complete bks simply designed to stir up a bit of "back stabbing French" mentality, take it up with the DT, or the various retired military officers, veterans and politicians who are stirring the pot. There's another piece today, lead story, invoking comments from Cmdr Mike Norman First Officer on Sheffield, Lord Tebbit and an ex Sheffield weapons electrician who reckons it wouldn't have made a difference anyway, first point really see it 8 miles away and incoming at several hundred knots.

article said:

There were even those who believed that France wanted the Exocets to prove their effectiveness in battle, so that they could sell more of them to military powers around the world.

It was against this backdrop that a British official asked permission to dismantle an earlier model of an Exocet possessed by the Ministry of Defence, in order to look for a kill switch.

Clearance had to come from Downing Street, as defence contracts strictly forbade buyers from dismantling weapons.

By taking apart the missile’s seeker-head, experts became convinced that kill switches did exist in the variant used by Argentina, and they were also able to work out that electronic counter-measures could be used to deflect the missiles as they approached their targets.

I mean, contract forbidding you from dismantling something you've bought, really? Bet that never stopped a Navy weapons engineer, be rude not to have a look. Is that just more media twaddle? Based on the fact that whenever read something that I do know the ins and outs of it's generally been complete fiction. Which is why asking.

[Hill92]

FiF said:

I mean, contract forbidding you from dismantling something you've bought, really? Bet that never stopped a Navy weapons engineer, be rude not to have a look. Is that just more media twaddle? Based on the fact that whenever read something that I do know the ins and outs of it's generally been complete fiction. Which is why asking.

There are contractual clauses around who can maintain weapon systems and especially programming. Nice little earner for the manufacturer if you have to go back to them to add some lines of code to integrate a new weapon to their aircraft rather being able to do it yourself.

As you say, very likely that a curious Navy engineer somewhere would have taken it apart physically. Also I can't imagine that a kill switch would be physically obvious.

Would make a bit more sense if they really meant decompiling the software and analysing the code line by line.

But it still sounds bks frankly.

[Countdown]

Maybe just my non-military thinking but surely the discovery of a kill-switch would make the weapon unsellable? If any country identifies one and then immediately tells its allies why would they bother buying a weapon that was potentially useless?

Also I thought Exocet had an active radar seeker as opposed to passive?

[98elise]

Hill92 said:

FiF said:

I mean, contract forbidding you from dismantling something you've bought, really? Bet that never stopped a Navy weapons engineer, be rude not to have a look. Is that just more media twaddle? Based on the fact that whenever read something that I do know the ins and outs of it's generally been complete fiction. Which is why asking.

There are contractual clauses around who can maintain weapon systems and especially programming. Nice little earner for the manufacturer if you have to go back to them to add some lines of code to integrate a new weapon to their aircraft rather being able to do it yourself.

As you say, very likely that a curious Navy engineer somewhere would have taken it apart physically. Also I can't imagine that a kill switch would be physically obvious.

Would make a bit more sense if they really meant decompiling the software and analysing the code line by line.

But it still sounds bks frankly.

Navy Weapons Engineers wouldn't be opening the missile. On board they were stored in launch containers so not something you could easily open. It would have to be done on a redundant missile.

I can say with some confidence that no sane Weapons Engineer would start opening up missiles if not part of a normal maintenance routine or repair. The potential for borkage is high, and you will be personally liable for any fk ups.

[98elise]

Countdown said:

Maybe just my non-military thinking but surely the discovery of a kill-switch would make the weapon unsellable? If any country identifies one and then immediately tells its allies why would they bother buying a weapon that was potentially useless?

Also I thought Exocet had an active radar seeker as opposed to passive?

Yes, it would also render all in service systems compromised. That's a big risk for a manufacturer. Can you trust your workforce not to blab?

Exocet is passive in its initial phase (inertial navigation only), then when near the target becomes active looking for the target. It's not being guided by the ship in any way. Once fired it's on its own.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 5th May 19:26

[hepy]

98elise said:

FiF said:

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

Sounds like bks. How would the manufacturer operate the "kill switch" from 8000 miles away?

I've been on an Exocet operation/maintenance team in the RN and there wasn't anything required from the manufacturer to fire them.

Daily Telegraph front page has something on this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-613422... and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/france...

[98elise]

hepy said:

98elise said:

FiF said:

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

Sounds like bks. How would the manufacturer operate the "kill switch" from 8000 miles away?

I've been on an Exocet operation/maintenance team in the RN and there wasn't anything required from the manufacturer to fire them.

Daily Telegraph front page has something on this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-613422... and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/france...

That's the first article that starts to make any sense. It's talking about Electronic countermeasures (ECM) on french ships designed to stop Exocet being used against them. Of course we could also attempt to jam (it's standard ECM stuff) but you don't have much time as it's only active in the final phase of flight.

Previous articles have spoken about remote kill switches, us wanting the "codes", and that the technology isn't understood.

The problem with newspapers is they have little understanding of what they are reporting, and like to dumb it down, and sex it up at the same time.

[FiF]

98elise said:

hepy said:

98elise said:

FiF said:

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

Sounds like bks. How would the manufacturer operate the "kill switch" from 8000 miles away?

I've been on an Exocet operation/maintenance team in the RN and there wasn't anything required from the manufacturer to fire them.

Daily Telegraph front page has something on this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-613422... and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/france...

That's the first article that starts to make any sense. It's talking about Electronic countermeasures (ECM) on french ships designed to stop Exocet being used against them. Of course we could also attempt to jam (it's standard ECM stuff) but you don't have much time as it's only active in the final phase of flight.

Previous articles have spoken about remote kill switches, us wanting the "codes", and that the technology isn't understood.

The problem with newspapers is they have little understanding of what they are reporting, and like to dumb it down, and sex it up at the same time.

It's the same newspaper that's been quoted all along, including today's post. Maybe they're deliberately covering it in stages to run the story over a few days as opposed to one big hit. Better for sales. Or maybe they're genuinely getting new information. Whatever. It's still the same story except previous articles hadn't specifically used the words electronic countermeasures and box-like transmitter, despite hints of 'something'.

Still maybe it finally gives the peanut gallery something to chew on.

[98elise]

FiF said:

98elise said:

hepy said:

98elise said:

FiF said:

Over on the other thread there was a short discussion on whether the Exocet that got the Sheffield did explode. Later modelling suggests it did, though as with all models there's room for interpretation.

Anyway moving on from that, what do we make of this latest pot stirring.

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

Gist of the article is that pressure is being brought for an investigation that the French had installed kill switches in the Exocet, designed to disarm or render a missile ineffective if it fell into the hands of a hostile state. Something that weapons manufacturers sometimes build in.

France was asked if this was the case with the Exocet but refused to cooperate, denied they existed. British thought they were lying based on an investigation and dismantling of an earlier version of the missile.

Also claimed that Margaret Thatcher threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina if France didn't poppy up the info.

Sounds like bks. How would the manufacturer operate the "kill switch" from 8000 miles away?

I've been on an Exocet operation/maintenance team in the RN and there wasn't anything required from the manufacturer to fire them.

Daily Telegraph front page has something on this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-613422... and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/05/france...

That's the first article that starts to make any sense. It's talking about Electronic countermeasures (ECM) on french ships designed to stop Exocet being used against them. Of course we could also attempt to jam (it's standard ECM stuff) but you don't have much time as it's only active in the final phase of flight.

Previous articles have spoken about remote kill switches, us wanting the "codes", and that the technology isn't understood.

The problem with newspapers is they have little understanding of what they are reporting, and like to dumb it down, and sex it up at the same time.

It's the same newspaper that's been quoted all along, including today's post. Maybe they're deliberately covering it in stages to run the story over a few days as opposed to one big hit. Better for sales. Or maybe they're genuinely getting new information. Whatever. It's still the same story except previous articles hadn't specifically used the words electronic countermeasures and box-like transmitter, despite hints of 'something'.

Still maybe it finally gives the peanut gallery something to chew on.

It maybe the same newspaper but it's the first article that makes any sense. The previous ones sounded like they didn't have a clue how this stuff works.

Being able to feed a false target back when the missile is active, is at least plausible. Jamming (basically flooding the missiles radar) is normal countermeasures, but the manufacturer would know how the missile would respond to jamming, giving an edge to anyone that knows the details.

That said you you don't get much time to deal with an Exocet attack. It's what makes sea skimmers successful, hence the need for Close in Weapons Systems.