Defence Update

At his press conference in Washington on August 30, Mr. Beazley named Winnin as one of the projects of possible technical co-operation under the Australian-American alliance relationship. He said the technology for Winnin had been largely developed in Australia. “But to have any substantial possibility for further development really requires an association with a large Navy user”. The Minister said that he had stressed the Winning project to the US Administration as a cooperative prospect. US companies that might be interested in collaborative arrangements have so far not been revealed.

Defence scientists, Navy officers and other defence officials believe the development phase of Winning is sufficiently advanced for Australia to achieve a worthwhile deal with the US.

Winnin started back in 1975 as a research project when the DSTO recognised the need for a decoy to counter anti-ship missiles in general. The fresh question about the vulnerability of warships arose when, in 1967, an Egyptian patrol boat sank an Israeli warship, and 175 people were killed. While that Russian Styx missile represents old technology, the sinking demonstrated the power of anti-ship missiles, which apart from the damage they could cause, also meant a rethink on the operational capabilities of warships.

All this was reinforced when the Royal Navy destroyer, HMS Sheffield was destroyed by an Argentinian air-launched “fire-and-forget” self-guided Exocet missile on May 4, 1982, in the Falklands conflict. It signalled a new phase in naval warfare. Anti-ship missiles also have been used effectively against tankers and other ships in the Persian Gulf, and at Kharg Island. HMS Sheffield incorporated protective measures to counter normal air attacks, torpedoes or naval gunfire. But the undetected Exocet launch meant that it was unable to defend itself against such a sudden anti-missile attack.

Navy planners throughout the world recognised that the anti-ship missile posed a threat to naval operations unless it could be effectively countered. “Chaff” such as aluminium foil used as a passive decoy has been a countermeasure in use with navies since 1943, but it is not controllable because it depends on the direction of the wind, and quickly disperses.

The options for the defence of warships since those early days included the location and destruction of the launch platform. This cannot always be relied upon to have a high success rate. And it has been made more difficult by the development of more sophisticated anti-ship missiles which can be fired from small ships, submarines, aircraft and land-based launchers. The last ditch defence comes from rapid-firing weapons whose bullets seek to destroy the incoming missile. The RAN currently is fitting the Phalanx rapid-fire gun to some of its major ships for last-ditch defence.

Research by Australian defence scientists on a decoy to confuse an anti-ship missile evolved a hovering rocket concept considered to be well ahead of anyone else.

The task was to have it appear like a ship and move at the speed of a ship, and to get it offboard rapidly and reliably. Even a few seconds could mean the difference between a successful decoy and a disaster. While it has yet to be tested from a ship, the scientists, with assistance from the Government Aircraft Factory in Melbourne and the Navy, have been able to make a rocket hover, and the concept has moved towards proving the systems by bench testing and other trials. A lot of conceptual and hardware work is continuing. A great deal of the payload technology is uniquely an Australian invention. The concept of the design and the decoy rocket are purely Australian.

But to get to a production phase, it is recognised that there is a need for access to US high technology which to date is not available in this country. These details are classified. The limitation concerns certain components only available overseas. It has not been economically practical to make such investments in Australia, hence the move to encourage those who could provide this technology in the US to join in the project.

Not unnaturally one reason why most of the details of the various technologies are classified is to prevent anti-ship missile manufacturers being able to find methods to overcome the planned countermeasures. As the Department of Defence explains, the deployment of a successful anti-ship missile decoy requires a fast launch procedure and the lure. The system should be quickly available and launched into position.

The decoy then must be capable of deceiving the radar seeker in the missile and inducing it to respond to false target echoes created or generated by the decoy. The aim is to have the missile home in on the decoy rather than the ship. In the Falklands, helicopters were used as decoys, but that was an expensive and tactically unpopular move.

As we have mentioned, foil of chaff can be used, but cannot be controlled because of the wind factor. A grave disadvantage is that it can blow back on the ship. In any case modern missiles are mostly now able to detect that chaff is not a ship. Efforts to use parachutes, balloons and small remotely piloted vehicles have been experimented with in many countries, but have not provided a reliable, cost-effective solution.

Australian scientific expertise in the development of variable thrust solid propellant rocket motor technology capable of responding to guidance command gave the major breakthrough to controlled hovering flight.

The technical leadership by the Weapons Systems Research Laboratory at Salisbury on what is basically an electronic warfare project and some of the vehicle control work at GAF and the Aeronautical Research Laboratory proved the concept four years ago of a rocket that would soar, select a location and then, according to Defence officials, “waltz, tango or jive” to pre-programmed order. That concept was unproven but theoretically calculated as feasible back in 1978.

In 1981 a Winnin hovering rocket test vehicle underwent successful flight trials which experimentally confirmed the concept of a rocket-supported decoy that could be deployed from a ship rapidly in all weather, position itself according to pre-programmed command instructions and manoeuvre at low altitude in convincing simulation of the movement of a ship. Further trials have refined and improved the system.

So the stage has been reached for a collaborative arrangement to combine the high technologies available here and in the US, and to share the costs.

The Winnin project (Winnin is an aboriginal word that means deception or trickery) so far has cost about $20 million. Its engineering development is likely to cost a further $30-40 million. While the US has hovering rockets of its own, the Australian design and development is much cheaper and is in a solid state, very simple, push-button, and reliable.

In total, seven centres of research in Australia have been involved in Project Winnin. These participants are ARL (aerodynamics and some control aspects), the Advanced Engineering Laboratory (launching and handling), the Electronic Research Laboratories (payload concept and systems perform- ance), Weapons Systems Research Laboratory, the Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong, the Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong (all connected with propulsion technology) and the GAF (overall vehicle design). (A review of the precise functions of the various units of DSTO are given on p56, Sept AA). The final stage of development envisages co-operation with an overseas partner for payload development to bring together the two modules – the vehicle and payload.

If necessary, the Winning system is expected to be able to stand alone apart from the use of other defensive measures already in place on many ships. Winnin is compatible with the US-designed Mark 137 chaff launcher system. Tests have shown that two sailors can load quickly and safely in conditions up to Sea State 5 which is rather rough. The system will provide for rapid reloading and launch should more than one or two decoys be considered necessary.

It is planned that the Winnin canister will be lightweight and not only function as a launch barrel but provide protection of the decoy during storage and transportation. The canister would be sealed in the factory and therefore would not require maintenance at sea. Storage life is assessed at several years. Winnin also could be launched from an Australian-designed stand-alone module holding 10 rockets at the required angle for firing. The. launcher could fit on vessels as small as a patrol boat.

The flight profile of the decoy is controlled after launch by an autopilot incorporated into a purpose designed flight control system based on modern microprocessor technology. Such technology allows data to be transferred to the decoy on launch which together with data obtained during the flight from inbuilt sensors results in a trajectory that gives optimum decoy performance in all weathers. This obviates the need for trained personnel to handle the launchers.

The Winnin decoy is being developed with a fire control system suitable for integration into the overall ship fire control and sensor fit. Information to launch a decoy may by provided from a ship’s electronic support measures system or radar systems. In small warships the interface could be quite simple. In ships larger than destroyer escorts, the interface could be made more capable and complex. But in all cases the operation of the decoy system is simple and would be controlled by the ship’s Electronic Warfare Officer.

Cost investigations suggest that Winnin could be produced in quantity at only a fraction of the cost of other point defence guided missiles, and that because it has the capability of decoying more than one missile, it should be effective against multiple salvo attacks.

But the overall development cost to a production system not only requires some further technology from overseas, but requires a bigger production run on cost effective grounds than would be possible if the RAN had a requirement to fit Winnin systems to say 12 main warships.

Mr Peter Hider has been given the task within the Defence Industry Development Division of heading a new Special Project Development Branch to manage the transition of Project Winnin from a research concept to a production system, including the arrangement and management of an overseas collaborative agreement. In time after the project moves out of a controlled laboratory environment, Hider’s job is likely to become redundant with Winnin taken on as a project within the Navy Materiel Division. But marketing would be carried out by DIDD.

Several teams have been overseas this year testing the market for the invention and its prospects to interested parties. The first group who were away in February and March comprised three from the Melbourne-based Trippett Allan group – Mr John Trippett, Mr Keith Smith and Mr Bob Noakes Captain Allan Brecht, RAN, Mr Garry Luck of the Office of Defence Production and Mr John Curtin of DSTO.

The information made available indicated that Australia had some high technology initiatives of its own and that overseas companies would be welcome to see licensing or collaborative arrangements. Another fact to emerge in the Winnin story is that the Government Aircraft Factories have a capability for flight control and guidance systems which has not been publicly revealed to any great degree for years.

(Max Hawkins is the Editor of DEFENCE INDUSTRY NEWSLETTER. )