Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good Lord, I may even manage to be first (if I can type fast enough).

Question. Is there opportunity for the weird Australian active RF decoy missile that hovers & can manoeuvre (Nulka)? In service with Australia, Canada & US. I would have thought alternative payloads were also possible.


Nulka is big…really big and on an AB I have seen a maximum of 8(Usually only 4) carried . They sit in dedicated launch tubes between the funnels in the midships cross passage. You cannot reload them.

Supportive Bloke

NULKA creates a ghost electronic ship as well as messing up whatever it can of the incoming missiles sensors.

The ideal ‘thing’ would be fast fired a reasonable distance from the ship and then persistently hover around.

However, you could see that role played by a mid weight drone in future that is pre positioned and flying in a high threat environment. Maybe kept at altitude to keep it out of the salt spray and swoop down and EW transmit/fire chaff when a threat emerges?


It’s very possible that Leonardo’s Britecloud may see service onboard ships soon. This can do everything Nulka can do RF wise but better and in a much smaller package. A launch vehicle for the jammer will need sorting, as the current explosive squip, is not powerful enough to launch it any significant distance. There have been images of Britecloud using a parawing, but how and what it was launched by were not included. But raises the possibility that a ship variant is being looked at.


The image provide by our good friend X shows low impact from the main unit. Vertical launch helps too


They are chunky units. But there is lots of space on today’s big hulls.


The hangar is useful after all as it has ‘roof real estate’ !


It is still a shed. Stepping things towards the centrer is betterer. Look at some of the US Terrier and Tartar hulls.

comment image

The only person who likes hangars beyond the flight is the club swinger who sees it has his mini-sports hall……….

Last edited 1 year ago by X

yes , 1950s and 60s designs were like that. But an advanced new design was laid down in 1959 that has set the pattern since
Some since have even placed the VL tubes beside or in front of the hangar,

Last edited 1 year ago by Duker

This country tried the no hangar but still a landing area for a while , but decided on the error of their ways and slotted in one hangar each side


Having Hangers on Ships is one thing but having enough Helicopters to fill them is another….. We have neither enough Ship Hangers nor Helicopters to Park in them really.

Bloke down the pub

How about just dangling something from a small quadcopter?

Supportive Bloke

If it is active it needs power.

The chaff needs to disperse into something that look, to the incoming, like a warship….


A packet of crisps and a can of beer will do it


comment image


The RN has had trainable launchers the 3″ Corvus launchers for throwing out distraction chaff. From experience they had issues with among other things the electrics, barrel loaded switches and firing cables.

Superseded by firstly SRBOC and then DLH they removed the troublesome barrel loaded switches by using magnetic reed switches and the firing pulse is done by an induction coil coupling between the barrel and round. No training or elevation movement required as the barrels are bolted to plinths on the deck. It is simple, has little to go wrong with it and pretty much Jack Proof. (Stand fast the really small shear pins in the barrel/round clamp mechanism!)

Trainable launchers will speed up reaction times . However trainable launchers have moving parts and complexity so there is more to break, fail and go wrong. Looking at the videos there are a lot of pistons, hinges, pivots etc to keep greased up and free of salt encrusting.

You will still be reliant on the unsung but critical system inputs of Wind Speed and Direction from Anemometers and ship speed from the Log for getting the chaff seed patterns deployed correctly. Lose those inputs and the soft kill systems automation of chaff seeding is degraded


In total agreement, looks sexy but more moving parts and potential failure points may make this an issue for availability and maintenance. How useful is it if the training drive breaks

Bloke down the pub

The problem with decoys, as demonstrated during the Falklands conflict, is that if an escort vessel does manage to decoy an incoming missile away from themselves, it will just seek out a new target, which is likely to be the vessel they were there to protect. In a peer conflict, it might be worthwhile considering Q ships, expendable vessels configured to appear like a major target and able to soak up incoming missiles.


Do you like to be the expendable target soaking up missiles?


This is something those much vaunted drones could do…………


Agreed that a lost missile is still a dangerous proposition for a fleet / carrier group!
This is why, after that lesson from the Falklands, the RN classifies AShMs as threats that require a hard kill response too- regardless of success of passives.
This is apparently different to the USN (at least Gulf War era), who felt that passive decoys were sufficient, and RN escorts ended up shooting down an Iraqi missile or two that would have caused problems if they hadn’t.
If the RN’s policy is to shoot down the missile anyway, even if it has lost lock, then probably less need for Q ships.

Phillip Johnson

I have an uncomfortable feeling that radar guided SSM’s will decline in favor of imaging infra-red.
It is worth remembering that your average IR based air to air missile (AIM-9, ASRAMM, Iris-T) now has a seeker that can identify aircraft shapes and target particular parts of the shape.
The Naval Strike Missile (replacing Harpoon in many navies) uses IR with passive RF as a backup. Such new missiles are going to be very hard to counter with either Chaff or flares.
More and more it is going to be complex decoys or hard kill.


You can have imaging with radar. Next SSM’s will have AESA radars with SAR capabilities.

Standard chaff clouds will be obsolete in 10-20 years for top peers.


It won’t be long before these missiles can actually see a ship and know what it is they are looking at.


With speed AI is advancing it can be already today. Public don’t have access to black programs. So even what i said above might be “pessimistic”

Last edited 1 year ago by AlexS

There have been a few ‘camera systems’ down the years.

I am sure we are close. But not quite. That is we may have something that can do it that is ‘fridge’ sized (for want of something to compare) but not quite something we could stick on the front of missile.


I seem to remember they might be able discriminate what is the ‘centre’ of the target they are homing in on as thats the the sweet spot for a substantial warhead to cause major damage. I dont know if this is the actual case anymore.


Search for this image caption in Google

Gripen NG’s new Selex-Galileo ES-05 Raven AESA radar’s SAR (synthetic Aperture Radar) mode in test! Picture of the Linköping AB compared to a satellite picture (Picture: SAAB).

It is an image from 10 years ago. And obviously we are not in top secret stuff.

Defence thoughts

Armour drones that line themselves between the incoming ordnance and the ship will eventually come into use. A 10×10 grid of them each equipped with a square shield might defend against all manner of physical threats.


They tried something similar at the start of WW2 to ‘catch’ incoming aircraft – Unrotated projectiles they were called
A small cordite charge was used to ignite a rocket motor which propelled the fin-stabilised 7 in-diameter (18 cm) rocket out of the tube to a distance of about 1,000 ft (300 m), where it exploded and released an 8.4 oz (240 g) mine attached to three parachutes by 400 ft (120 m) of wire. An aeroplane hitting the wire would draw the mine towards itself, where it would detonate.’
HMS Nelson 1940. The flaws werent obvious at the time , but yours are

Defence thoughts

What particular flaws do you have in mind?


The Multi Ammunition Softkill System (MASS) is a trainable launcher connected to ship sensors by launching decoys that operate in all relevant wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum: ultraviolet, electro-optical, laser, infrared, and radar.

Last edited 1 year ago by ACNS

1: Multi Ammunition Softkill System (MASS) is becoming popular now. How about combining SeaGnat with MASS. Former for early phase chaff/flare, and latter for close-in use?

2: IR-imaging homing missile is a bit of problem, I can see. But, at the same time, such an imaging homing can my soft-killed by proper smoke and/or chaff-IR-reflector with numerous flares. Just wait for such system to be developed.

Supportive Bloke

More the thing is that IR sensors/detectors can be saturated by a very intense source such that they are not able to discriminate.

The only way round that is by using a very large, very heavy, very hard to calibrate and very expensive prism(s) systems such as, for example; Calcium Flouride (200-7000nm); Zinc Selenide (600 -18000nm) or Germanium (2000-14000nm) so as to try and separate the wavelength(s) of interest to a narrow band away from likely flare IR frequencies. OK you don’t really want to use prism optics in a missile but it does for the schoolboy level physics analogy!

The only issue is that if your opposition knows which prism you have fitted then they will, pretty much, know how to saturated the detector by using flares that saturate that range of frequencies.

There is also the tiny problem of needing to keep the ‘prism’ optics dead dry as they are hygroscopic!

As ever having multiple means of targeting and comparing the data is the way forwards as you cannot fool all of the sensors all of the time.

Supportive Bloke

I should have added that this was why industrial sapphire was/is used for some IR applications. Sapphire has good mechanical strenght and does not need to be specially protected and so can be the outside object on the nose of the missile.

But it too has its own limitation(s).


There is a way around IR seeker saturation overload, which is through digital blinking. The blink rate and duration can be controlled. This is a system that has been in use for quite a while. Some of the first systems to use it were aircraft missile approach warning systems (MAWs). As it was found that when the MAWs detected a threat, it would then deploy flares, but then blind itself, due to the flare’s intensity. By blinking it allows the seeker’s sensor to reset and not be overloaded. Then to see beyond the flare as its intensity wanes and extinguishes.

This process is also being used in missiles that use IR sensors, ASRAAM for example.

Aircraft launched flares are becoming obsolescent, As when they deploy, they don’t mimic an aircraft’s flight profile. Which means a missile with a moving target algorithm can quickly distinguish between an aircraft and a flare or pattern of flares.

Apart from a kinetic kill. The more effective method is through directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM). This gets round the missile seekers blink capability by having a much longer duration than a flare, where the light intensity is more focused on the seeker. DIRCM uses a highly focused IR light source. It is being replaced with a laser-based system (LIRCM), e.g. Leonardo Miysis.

With older missile IR seekers, you could pulse the DIRCM, which made the missile believe the target was moving away. Which then made the missile turn away towards where it thought the target was. Today’s Imaging infrared sensors are not so easily fooled. They require the sensor be constantly lit up and overloaded. The missile will then either fly on a straight path or towards the last known position of its target. Today’s DIRCM/LIRCM do not have the strength to burn out the seeker. Though that is likely to change in the future with the adaption of more powerful lasers.


Presumably the future is AI drones


Spot on! Think out of the box.
Drone with decoys but must be quick reactions.

Last edited 1 year ago by ACNS

Once in the air the drones can be coordinated to do some very clever things

Last edited 1 year ago by Duker
Rob N

I think we should be looking to add aircraft style missile approach warning systems to ships and linking this to DEW to blind EO missiles. This should be backed up by ECM/ECCM on ships and perhaps on towed platforms behind the ship to avoid lock-on-jam targeting.

It is quite clear that chaff/flares fired from ships no longer provide good protection.

Supportive Bloke

That was a done deal long ago and the pinnacle of that was the development of the SAMPSON radar/threat suite.

It is already linked to ECM and the soft kill systems etc

That software then lives in a CMS module that can be ported and used with other capable radars.

This discussion is about the effectors that are then loosed off in response.

The right kind of chaff and flares with ECM can be surprisingly effective. The main thing is to mess up as many of the incoming weapons sensors as possible, at the same time, so the missile gets confused about what is real and what is a ghost.

Trevor G

Regarding the MTLS updates on the 8 A/S Type 23, could it be the intention to migrate these to the 8 Type 26 rather than order additional units?