Nulka anti-ship missile decoy

[AeroFranz]

I searched the forum and did not find relevant mentions of the Nulka Aussie rocket-powered system. I was wondering if anyone had info/tech specs other than what can be gathered from the usual places (FAS, global security, wikipedia...)

So I'd be really grateful if anyone had some info he/she could share. i realize it's a long shot, but the forum has been helpful beyond my wildest hopes in the past.

thanks in advance!

 

[RP1]

I don't know much more than the public info

http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_nulka_fact_sheet.pdf

It uses a rocket driven rotor, IIRC.

 

[AeroFranz]

It uses a rocket driven rotor, IIRC.

I got the impression that the rocket's thrust was the only thing keeping the decoy aloft. I did not see references to a rotor...did i miss something?
The pictures show 4 short blades sticking out the top, but I thought they might be antennas. But I don't know for sure.

 

[sferrin]

It uses a rocket driven rotor, IIRC.

I got the impression that the rocket's thrust was the only thing keeping the decoy aloft. I did not see references to a rotor...did i miss something?
The pictures show 4 short blades sticking out the top, but I thought they might be antennas. But I don't know for sure.

Nope. No rotor, those are antennas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzJAL1NWwCg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm hardly going to help you rip-off and reverse engineer an Australian product (the rocket, the seduction decoy is US). However I will point out it took Aussie engineers decades to develop a stable hovering rocket that can simulate the maneuvering of a warship. So sucked in and I wish you the worst in your endeavours.

 

[sferrin]

I'm hardly going to help you rip-off and reverse engineer an Australian product (the rocket, the seduction decoy is US). However I will point out it took Aussie engineers decades to develop a stable hovering rocket that can simulate the maneuvering of a warship. So sucked in and I wish you the worst in your endeavours.

Didn't want to be rude but I'll second that.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I will point out it took Aussie engineers decades to develop a stable hovering rocket that can simulate the maneuvering of a warship.

Shoulda just bought these, then, and saved a buttload of time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MdzrTfIE2g

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I suggest we stick with publicly known information as I have no desire to irritate the Australians. If New Zealand doesn't pan out Aus is the next place on my list to live in

 

[GTX]

I'm annoyed because my boss dropped me an email on a Friday evening telling me to reverse engineer and modify this device,

Talk about asking for a court case against you!

Regards,

greg

 

[RP1]

Nope. No rotor, those are antennas.

You are correct, I was confusing this with a comparison of Nulka, Siren and some proposed methods in a PR presentation, my mistake.

RP1

 

[AeroFranz]

I'm hardly going to help you ripoff and reverse engineer an Australian product (the rocket, the seduction decoy is US). However I will point out it took Aussie engineers decades to develop a stable hovering rocket that can simulate the maneuvering of a warship. So sucked in and I wish you the worst in your endeavours.

Didn't want to be rude but I'll second that.

Well, if I were one of those Aussie engineers, I wouldn't lose sleep - If they are asking ME to work on it, they can't be too serious about it
I don't think I will magically come up with something that will make this product obsolete. And I'm pretty sure this thing will disappear off the scope in a matter of a couple of weeks, replaced by another Friday afternoon email requesting a flapping-wing stealthy steam-powered UCAV. Well, I'm complaining but these assignments are intellectually challenging and break the routine.

I too was amazed that the Aussie engineers managed to successfully balance an upside-down pendulum. At the same time, I would have used a different lifting method in my purely academic study, while preserving the same payload. So actually, there would be no Aussie-technology ripoff. I wanted to reverse-engineer the decoy because I still need to get an estimate of the payload weight, structure weight, battery weight, etc...in order to make an equivalent (but different) system.

Anyway, I appreciate the info shared, in particular the video. I was wondering what a launch of the thing looked like in real life.

 

[flateric]

Writing a request to Mal Crozier, Nulka Chief Designer at BAE Systems Australia?

 

[AeroFranz]

Writing a request to Mal Crozier, Nulka Chief Designer at BAE Systems Australia?

Well, that would be an awesome source of information. Even without dwelling on the technical characteristics of the decoy, just finding out operational parameters such as how high does it needs to go, and how long it needs to stay up would be very helpful in sizing an equivalent system. Unfortunately it is my experience that if it's not on Jane's or in a public domain brochure, companies will err on the safe side and be very tight-lipped about everything. I can even sympathize with that, I sure as hell don't want our HR lady to barge in my office and bash my skull to pulp.