Could you launch an Exocet from an A-1 Skyraider?

Factual Questions
1

I’ve got my monthy weird militaria question ready, concerning the old Able Dog herself, the A-1 Skyraider. That is, how hard would it be to fire an Exocet Anti-Ship Missile off of one, if possible at all?

Obviously, this was never considered in real life, to the best of my knowledge, let alone in combat.

I’m having a hard time finding official figures, but it appears that the innermost wing pylons can accomidate a weapon the Exocet’s approximate size (ground clearance being an issue, as it’s a tail-dragger), and if those are photos of 300 gallon drop tanks that I keep seeing, from the figures I am seeing, they can handle the missile’s weight with hundreds of pounds to spare.

What I don’t know is, if the missile could even be properly/safely fired from a Skyraider—although there were helicopter launched versions, and the Argentinians improvised a land-launch system using naval Exocets during the Falklands War—or what kind of hardware would have to be added to the aircraft to power, target, and launch one.

Not helping matters is that there appear to be over thirty different variants of the A-1. Oy.

So, what the heck…I know it’s an insane “what if,” but exactly how insane would this military jury rig be? Any armchair armorers care to weigh in?

2

The French have three different aerial launch platforms for the AM39 Exocet and MBDA claims it’s launchable from 14 different aircraft types (probably none are prop aircraft though).

The AM39 weighs in at ~670kg (~1480lbs) and the A-1 had a payload capacity of 8,000lbs. But I’m just not sure about the ground clearance like you. Since the Exocet is fire and forget, barring the clearance issue, I think it’s doable.

3

If there’s enough ground clearance to load it, I can’t see safety being an issue; the AM39 will drop some distance before the motor ignites so that it is safely clear of the launch aircraft. The Br.1150 Atlantic could carry two in its internal bomb bay so its been used by prop aircraft.

I did not know the land based Exocets used by Argentina in the war were jerry-rigged ship mounted MM38s taken off of the destroyer Segui, I had assumed they were dedicated land based launchers like the ones the British had deployed at Gibraltar.

4

Gonna add to the discussion here, but since I don’t have access to my pubs anymore, it’ll be conjecture: “With the right modifications, yes.”

Three things to consider. . .
[ol]
[li]Software: If I recall correctly, the Exocet needs some sort of ‘pre-launch’ lock or guidance from the ‘mothership’. Normally the onboard radar will bounce some generic info towards the missile via data bus links. So, did the A-1 have radar systems installed that would ‘talk’ with the missile (if this in fact was needed by the Exocet)? [Again, this is my shakiest argument withoutmah reference material][/li][li]Hardware: The Exocet probably needs a certain type of rail system for launch. The French ones may not be perfectly compatible with US under-wing weapons stations, so some jerry-rigging and duct tape may be in order. Could be done w/inginuity.[/li][li]Launch Profiles: I don’t know the particular launch profile, but I’m sure the A-1 can maintain the altitude and level flight needed for pre-launch lock, and actual firing. Can be done.[/li][/ol]

So, my biggest question depends on the radar requirements pre-launch. Did a stock A-1 have the right avionics? I don’t know. But given the time, money, and labor, I’m sure one could be retrofitted, especially if the missile required it.

Tripler
I’ll say “plausible.”

5

Hi,

This is a great question…I like the way you think! Let me give this sucker a shot…

First of all, I’ll toss out a few bonafides so you at least can figure I know the difference between a Skyraider and an Exocet. As you can see by my “handle,” I’m a Vietnam Vet. I was in the Air Force during the latter half of the war and was an aircrew member flying ISR missions on one of those “tricked-out” C-130s used to such great effect. Between my USAF & civilian flying (all on military aircraft) I had 5, 651 flying hours. After the service I got a BSEE and was a radar engineer and did quite a bit of flight testing in the right seat of the F-111F. Later on when I started doing mgmt consulting, I began doing a lot of military history research, book writing, and speaking/teaching about U.S. military air power.

As I’m sure you are aware, the A-1s were stationed @ NKP Air Base in Thailand, and several other airstrips in Vietnam. I could look-up the numbers pretty easily; but, I’d have to say if NKP didn’t originate the most A-1 sorties during the War, then it surely could not have been lower than 2nd place. My squadron had a detachment assigned to NKP; so, I flew in there for a few TDY gigs, and saw a lot of A-1 activity while there. I went over to the A-1 parking apron many times to shoot the bull with both the pilots and the crew chiefs. I also watched quite a few “Spads” come in with AAA damage and the sheet-metal mechanics just patched them up to fly again the next day.

I also had the pleasure of some “insider’s dope” from the Douglas Aircraft factory in El Segundo, Calif. My grandfather worked at Douglas for 35 years as the chief metallurgist in-charge of the heat treating department. A good example of the A-1’s ability to haul so much hardware in 30 different varieties as you pointed out, is the fact that an 11,000 lb plane could carry an external ordnance load of 14,000 lbs! Good airframe design was the starting point for this tough plane. But, the real key to getting that critical toughness was the metallurgical properties from heat treating the airframe components that would be carrying all the high stress loads during aerial combat.

having said all this, there’s no doubt the A-1 could handle the weight and any electrical power needs. The plane was also well known for being a stable weapons delivery platform. The tricky part of determining if the plane could handle an Exocet missile is all related to sensor requirements and how the pilot interfaced with it. If we take the pilot’s survivability as a given fact, and if the weapon is to be used from the A-1 without any external assistance, such as GPS navigation data from a satellite or targeting data coming from a remote sensor, of which there are multiple possibilities with this, and we state the target has to be acquired from a sensor of some kind aboard the A-1 or internal to the Exocet, the first major problem is the A-1’s positioning to acquire the target. The Exocet is designed to fly somewhat like a cruise missile. The older models had a range out to 50 or 60 miles and the newest goes 110 miles. Obviously, a pilot wants to fire the Exocet as a stand-off weapon. Due to sensor acquisition being direct line-of-sight, and a ship being on the earth’s surface, the earth’s curvature drops away at about 23 miles. This means the A-1 has to fly higher to acquire the target. We can figure if the A-1’s radar or other sensor can “see” the ship, the ship can “see” the A-1; that’s not a good thing.

The Exocet has terminal guidance to takeover when the missile is 20-30 miles out. Prior to terminal guidance, the Exocet has to be “flown” via commands from an external source. Unless the guidance signals are coming from a sensor equipped satellite or another source, the A-1 that launched the missile would have to remain unmasked to provide sensor updates to the Exocet. The missile flies sub-sonic, about 0.9 mach. If the missile was launched 60 or 70 miles out, it would be about six or seven minutes of flight time, and it could takeover terminal guidance about half-way out. This hypothetical situation then, would mean the A-1 had to remain unmasked for approx three minutes or so.

A quick segue here for a moment to the countermeasures for an aircraft attempting to deliver an Exocet. The F-14 Fighter and AIM-54 Phoenix with 100 mile lethal envelope would’ve been the first choice up to 2004; but, they were retired. The countermeasure now is the F/A-18E Super Hornet and the AIM-120 AMRAAM with an approx 25 mile range. Studies showed that whether an enemy aircraft was to attempt a direct aircraft carrier attack or use an Exocet-style standoff weapon, there was no need to engage 100 miles out; the F/A-18 & AMRAAM combo and the Phalanx CIWS is adequate.

So, when you put this all together for a final summary of the A-1 carrying/firing/delivering an Exocet, it is mechanically and electronically doable. But, when you consider if the plane/pilot is survivable after launch, the answer is “not likely.” The plane is too slow and would have to unmask itself for too long of a time during target acquisition, launch and 1st phase guidance. The only way the weapon could be effective using an A-1 is if the plane was strictly a passive weapons hauler; where the A-1 didn’t have any responsibility for guidance or accuracy.

6

One other comment about the Exocet’s guidance…if the weapon is launched at 60 miles out from the target and drops to its “wave-hopping” mode, it’ll be below the horizon of the target and unable to “see” the target via its own sensor until it closes to 25 miles or so. This is why the Exocet’s terminal guidance isn’t used until the missile is above the horizon. Also, if the missile was launched as described and given the target’s last known location @ launch, but no guidance until it is unmasked when it pops above the horizon, the target could have moved a significant distance and no longer be within the Exocet’s radar scanning arc. Another possibility is if the missile’s in-flight and its guidance goes “dark” after launch and doesn’t pick-up until its close enough to be above the radar horizon, you have the distinct possibility that prior to launch it was aimed at a big, fat aircraft carrier, then it goes dark, but when its terminal guidance takes over and the aircraft carrier has moved away a considerable distance, no one is going to be too happy when the Exocet unmasks and the nearest thing it “sees” is not an aircraft carrier, but a 300ft frigate? This is especially troublesome when the strategically important base you have with early warning radar and such is within aircraft range from that aircraft carrier and if you can’t stop it from launching its planes, its gonna bomb the base with your only early warning “eyes.” Sinking a frigate is nice, but…

7

I make no claim about the rest of your post, but everything I’ve read about Exocet suggests that mid-course guidance is provided by an internal inertial navigation system. IOW, the pilot programs in the target’s course and speed, and the missile does the rest—no need to constantly update the missile with new target position fixes. Indeed, I don’t know if midcourse target position updating is available for any of the Exocet family. With no updating, there’s no need for the launch platform to be visible to the target. As you note, being visible by the target, never mind having to keep it illuminated, would be a problem for that aircraft.

With new modernizations of the Exocet missile, quite complicated courses can be programmed into the missile, to fly whatever approach to the target area is required. Now, how large of an area the Exocet can search to find its target in terminal phase, I don’t know. The latter link suggests the newer Exocets can fly a search pattern while radiating for as long as they have fuel. How to prevent multiple Exocets from dog-piling the ‘wrong’ target, or to pick the ‘best’ target out of a group, I don’t know.

8

Indeed, the Exocet, like most anti-ship missiles of its day, flies inertially to a given point at which time its own radar activates for terminal active radar homing for the last two or three miles of flight. There is no need for the launch aircraft to expose itself for any amount of the Exocet’s flight time, and as far as I know it can even be fired ‘blind’ by the launch aircraft with no known actual target, just at the suspected location of a target ship. The HMS Sheffield and SS Atlantic Conveyor had no idea they were under attack until the last few moments, Sheffield never made radar contact with the launching Super Etendards and only detected the Exocets 5 seconds out. General Exocet guidance:

Attack on the Sheffield:

9

VietVetSteve, welcome to the SDMB! Hell of a way to make an entrance–solid info, and you shed way more info on it than I could. :slight_smile:

Tripler
I just safe 'em.

10

Wow, indeed—thank you for the information, and thanks again to everyone for indulging my odd "what if"ing!