5 ms·

I have a vague memory that there were also problems with the Sea Wolf based defence system on the ships. The controlling software apparently recognised the inco

I have a vague memory that there were also problems with the Sea Wolf based defence system on the ships. The controlling software apparently recognised the incoming Exocets as friendly. I don't know if there is any credibility to this but I am sure it would have been fixed pretty rapidly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_(missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_(missile)

jt2190 7y ago
I heard something similar, I believe reported by the television news program “60 Minutes”, but the report I remember was about the Phalanx missile defense system not recognizing the Exocet as an “enemy” missile since it was a NATO weapon. Edit: Note that I’m working off of very old memories, and the 60 minutes reports may not have been accurate.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
  FWIW, I was in high school at the time and I remember something similar.
- NikkiA 7y ago
  None of the UK ships had Phalanx at that point in time, so it can't have been that.
lb1lf 7y ago
According to an army grunt friend of mine, there's a truism in his profession which goes "Friendly fire... ISN'T!" Joking aside, I would assume current IFF systems let you define anything not explicitly friendly as hostile - what with shifting alliances, armament development consolidation &c - the issue being how many backdoors there are. I take it as a given no US-made missile can kill a US-operated aircraft, regardless of what the operator of the missile desires. (Same goes for French, British, Russian &c)
- SEJeff 7y ago
  "There are no missed shots, just some bullets containing 'To whom it may concern'".
- gizmo686 7y ago
  > I take it as a given no US-made missile can kill a US-operated aircraft, I'm not so sure about that. That would require that all US made missiles have a "disarm" signal that the operators cannot override. Maybe for weapons we sell that is okay, but for our own use, that strikes me as too much of a liability if that signal ever gets compromised and spoofed.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    The list of designed obsolescences on the part of weapons manufacturers and war profiteers is too long to bear. Every single weapon can be turned on its maker, somehow. Else, its not an effective weapon.
NikkiA 7y ago
The problem was more that the only ships with Sea Wolf - which was the only thing we had at the time that COULD have taken out the exocets - were guarding the carrier group during the loss of Sheffield. AFTER the loss of sheffield, the policy was changed such that each class 42 was escorted by a class 22 (with sea wolfs). The Argentian navy did hit Glamorgan with an exocet after that, but Glamorgan wasn't anywhere near anything with Sea Wolf defenses at the time. The 'friendly' aspect is likely apocryphal, and possibly based on the fact that the Glamorgan and Antrim were both exocet missile destroyers themselves, and might thus have had issues with targetting a missile of the same type. But since neither of them had any point-defence systems it was moot. edit: or it may be from the fact that Broadsword's sea wolf system 'locked up' during the sinking of Coventry, and was unable to attack the inbound A4s that bombed Coventry. But from what I can see, the prevailing belief was that it was unable to lock on for the same reason Sea Dart on Coventry wouldn't - it couldn't discriminate the A4s from the land behind them.

jt2190 7y ago

I heard something similar, I believe reported by the television news program “60 Minutes”, but the report I remember was about the Phalanx missile defense system not recognizing the Exocet as an “enemy” missile since it was a NATO weapon. Edit: Note that I’m working off of very old memories, and the 60 minutes reports may not have been accurate.

HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
FWIW, I was in high school at the time and I remember something similar.
NikkiA 7y ago
None of the UK ships had Phalanx at that point in time, so it can't have been that.

lb1lf 7y ago

According to an army grunt friend of mine, there's a truism in his profession which goes "Friendly fire... ISN'T!" Joking aside, I would assume current IFF systems let you define anything not explicitly friendly as hostile - what with shifting alliances, armament development consolidation &c - the issue being how many backdoors there are. I take it as a given no US-made missile can kill a US-operated aircraft, regardless of what the operator of the missile desires. (Same goes for French, British, Russian &c)

SEJeff 7y ago
"There are no missed shots, just some bullets containing 'To whom it may concern'".
gizmo686 7y ago
> I take it as a given no US-made missile can kill a US-operated aircraft, I'm not so sure about that. That would require that all US made missiles have a "disarm" signal that the operators cannot override. Maybe for weapons we sell that is okay, but for our own use, that strikes me as too much of a liability if that signal ever gets compromised and spoofed.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  The list of designed obsolescences on the part of weapons manufacturers and war profiteers is too long to bear. Every single weapon can be turned on its maker, somehow. Else, its not an effective weapon.

NikkiA 7y ago

The problem was more that the only ships with Sea Wolf - which was the only thing we had at the time that COULD have taken out the exocets - were guarding the carrier group during the loss of Sheffield. AFTER the loss of sheffield, the policy was changed such that each class 42 was escorted by a class 22 (with sea wolfs). The Argentian navy did hit Glamorgan with an exocet after that, but Glamorgan wasn't anywhere near anything with Sea Wolf defenses at the time. The 'friendly' aspect is likely apocryphal, and possibly based on the fact that the Glamorgan and Antrim were both exocet missile destroyers themselves, and might thus have had issues with targetting a missile of the same type. But since neither of them had any point-defence systems it was moot. edit: or it may be from the fact that Broadsword's sea wolf system 'locked up' during the sinking of Coventry, and was unable to attack the inbound A4s that bombed Coventry. But from what I can see, the prevailing belief was that it was unable to lock on for the same reason Sea Dart on Coventry wouldn't - it couldn't discriminate the A4s from the land behind them.