Half a world, and half a lifetime away.
Discussion
98elise said:
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.
Maybe they didn't have a clue how this stuff works. Your first comment was to dismiss it out of hand with "sounds like bBeing 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.
ks".Very insightful. Then again.
FiF said:
98elise said:
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.
Maybe they didn't have a clue how this stuff works. Your first comment was to dismiss it out of hand with "sounds like bBeing 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.
ks".Very insightful. Then again.
ks.ECM is part of your normal defence. ECM is obviously more effective if you know what the missile will do when it encounters specific ECM. That's plausible.
Edited to add...
This is what was in the original article
original article said:
The Telegraph has been told that French-made Exocet guided missiles contained a "kill switch" that could have disarmed them
British experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state.
British experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 6th May 16:06
98elise said:
I was dismissing the idea of a remote kill switch that the French could use to disable a missile fired at one of our warships. That still sounds like bks.
ECM is part of your normal defence. ECM is obviously more effective if you know what the missile will do when it encounters specific ECM. That's plausible.
I have some insight because it was my job in the 80's
And you made a specific interpretation of the phrase 'kill switch' despite the articles not making nor suggesting that specific interpretation.ks.ECM is part of your normal defence. ECM is obviously more effective if you know what the missile will do when it encounters specific ECM. That's plausible.
I have some insight because it was my job in the 80's
And now, despite previous and even recent denials from the French according to the First Sea Lord, maybe not so clear cut after all, hence the dancing on the head of a pin.
Frankly if your insight is so great might it not have been more useful to say, well it's possible with electronic countermeasures to cause incoming missiles to miss the target or deactivate or whatever but that clearly we didn't / don't know if that was possible at the time.
Personally still think it might not have made much difference considering the time to impact when first identified accurately. Bearing in mind this was 40 years ago. But I'm not the one claiming a position of superior knowledge. Said a number of times I don't know the details and was simply asking for intelligent and background input, sadly didn't get that.
Anyway this bickering is distracting from an otherwise decent thread, so I'll just wait for more developments if any.
FiF said:
98elise said:
I was dismissing the idea of a remote kill switch that the French could use to disable a missile fired at one of our warships. That still sounds like bks.
ECM is part of your normal defence. ECM is obviously more effective if you know what the missile will do when it encounters specific ECM. That's plausible.
I have some insight because it was my job in the 80's
And you made a specific interpretation of the phrase 'kill switch' despite the articles not making nor suggesting that specific interpretation.ks.ECM is part of your normal defence. ECM is obviously more effective if you know what the missile will do when it encounters specific ECM. That's plausible.
I have some insight because it was my job in the 80's
And now, despite previous and even recent denials from the French according to the First Sea Lord, maybe not so clear cut after all, hence the dancing on the head of a pin.
Frankly if your insight is so great might it not have been more useful to say, well it's possible with electronic countermeasures to cause incoming missiles to miss the target or deactivate or whatever but that clearly we didn't / don't know if that was possible at the time.
Personally still think it might not have made much difference considering the time to impact when first identified accurately. Bearing in mind this was 40 years ago. But I'm not the one claiming a position of superior knowledge. Said a number of times I don't know the details and was simply asking for intelligent and background input, sadly didn't get that.
Anyway this bickering is distracting from an otherwise decent thread, so I'll just wait for more developments if any.
original article said:
The Telegraph has been told that French-made Exocet guided missiles contained a "kill switch" that could have disarmed them
British experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state.
I still maintain that some sort of remote disabling kill switch is highly likely to be bBritish experts believed the Exocets contained a kill switch, which arms manufacturers sometimes secretly build into weapons so they can be disabled if they fall into the hands of a hostile state.
ks.ECM is not a kill switch. It's a means to (hopefully) confuse or distract an inbound missile.
Anyway I'll stop posting on the subject now.
Edited by 98elise on Saturday 7th May 08:48
Tyre Tread said:
Just read the recently published "Harrier 809"
Some fascinating info in there.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117480/harrie...
Have also just read this - really good stuffSome fascinating info in there.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117480/harrie...
Also a couple of recent YouTube pieces by the Imperial War Museum about the aerial battle and the following land fight…
https://youtu.be/5Lw8eWE7aQ8
https://youtu.be/BX-UqeFSW3U
And just found the one about the conflict at sea too…
https://youtu.be/o1nENiXSrJY
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff