HMS Somerset, a Type 23 Frigate, is the first British warship to receive a replacement for the ageing Harpoon missile – the anti-ship and land-attack ‘Naval Strike Missile’.

The Naval Strike Missile is an anti-ship and land-attack missile developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.

According to the builders, “the Naval Strike Missile is a long-range, precision strike weapon that seeks and destroys enemy ships at distances greater than 100 nautical miles. The Naval Strike Missile eludes enemy radar and defence systems by performing evasive manoeuvres and flying at sea-skimming altitude. NSM uses an advanced seeker for precise targeting and carries a 500-pound class warhead with a programmable fuze.”

The Royal Navy will outfit the Naval Strike Missile to a total of eleven Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers in collaboration with the Norwegian government.

Specifications

  • Speed: 0.7 – 0.9 Mach
  • Weight: 407 kg (897 lbs)
  • Length: 3.96 m (156 inches)
  • Multi-mission: Sea and land targets
  • Range: >100 nm

The builders, Kongsberg, said in a press release in November.

“The collaboration will result in more ships equipped with the highly sophisticated Naval Strike Missiles which in turn will contribute in enhancing the security in our common areas of interest. Replacing the Harpoon surface-to-surface weapon, due to go out of service in 2023, the world-class anti-ship missile will be ready for operations onboard the first Royal Navy vessel in a little over 12 months.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

220 COMMENTS

    • Well there is a war on with a nutter with a navy of sorts.

      The strong smell of coffee appears to have permiated to the top floor of MOD and HMT.

      I doubt Rishi signed off on this it was probably Doris steamrollering it.

      At least No 11 is inhabited by someone who understand the human and financial cost of ships being sunk.

      Good news that T23 and maybe T45 are getting bigger teeth.

      Ultimately I guess the teeth get added to T31 and T45’s in harms way.

      • With the latest remarks coming out of the US about the inefficacy of the British army and the under-investment if the UK in its armed forces, I wonder if an increase in spending now might be likely. I doubt it.

        • Not with an over promoted accountant in number 10. He sees everything as numbers and £ signs without any understanding of need or value.

          • Unfortunately I concur – the price of everything and the value of nothing.
            Never a politician and most certainly not a leader.

          • Not necessarily. Sunak found money for workers to doss at home and do DIY during Furlough and energy help.
            You could solve all the Armies woes by asking South Korea to set up a manufacturing hub in the North of England to licence build K2 Black Panther , K9A2 and a UK version of Redback IFV with a joint development hub for all other UK future needs . Spin them the chance of Tempest.
            That would be one hope of retaining some of the red wall seats.

          • Excuse me but some of us “workers” not only had to work whilst others DIY’d, but didn’t even get an invite to Bo Jo’s party.
            I deserve my free wheelie of booze, a go on the swing and a complimentary fine which ultimately was paid for out of a Government Salary.
            Seriously though and I’m no fan but at the time most think he nailed it !
            But in hindsight the cost of the borrowing has really impacted our ability to deal with the next problems. Which no one could foresee Ukraine, Energy and inflation.

          • I totally agree. Across the political spectrum there doesn’t seem to be many serious politicians with both gravitas and understanding. Factor in moral rectitude and that number drops if not cancels.

            I don’t like the Conservatives today. They don’t seem to want to conserve anything I value and look more like New Labour and although there’s a few policies coming out of Labour that are ok they seem to get captured by extremist social ideologies so easily and can’t conceive of an answer which isn’t solved by taxing people more.

            Vote Labour or Conservative and you get to the same approximate destination just at different paces, in terms of taxation, economy, social policy and defence.

            So, what’s the point of a party system? I’m starting to think we should scrap them entirely and let our MPs freely associate on any topic in accordance with the platform on which they stood and let the chamber collectively decide on policy.

          • We have a situation where both parties are fairly broad churches and that isn’t due to attracting members but not frightening off the floating voter.

            The Traditional middle to right wing of the Labour Party (New Labour et all) tend to be patriotic social democrats, with a social conscious and on occasion do things that surprise many (Atlee and the U.K atom bomb, Brown with the Carriers).

            The middle to left wing of the Tories (1 Nation et all) tend to be very similar and on occasion do some social interventions that surprise many (Furlough scheme BJ and National minimum wage Cameron).
            And that shouldn’t really surprise us as the electorate has shown time and time again the radical left and right do not win the Big Votes often in peacetime (Churchill, Foot, Corbyn).

            I like how John Cleese described the large central block of the U.K. electorate who really do decide the Government.
            Generally speaking we are old fashioned Liberals.
            That is.
            Socially aware and slightly Left of Centre on some things and Right of centre on others
            So we are pro NHS, Education, Human Rights and Liberty on one hand and pro Law & Order, Immigration and a bit Nationalist on the other.
            Name me one other country who could possibly have an Trades Union organiser who is left of centre Labour but also an absolute ardent Royalist as Deputy leader of the Labour Party.

            The problem we have at present is Defence isn’t usually an issue which concerns us at election times and when it is; we tend to be in the Plop already.

            I’ve wracked my brains but I think the last Politician to actually, seriously put increasing defence spending in an election manifesto and mean it was ……….

            Lord Palmerston.

            So be proud, be British, put the Kettle on and Bugger on regardless. Cause it may improve but not really change.

          • With a British made Biscuit I hope 🇬🇧 For me it is a good strong mug of Yorkshire Tea, a Digestive and the prayer “don’t fall back in post dunk”.

          • I’d opt for a large brandy. Smacks of “gold plating” spring to mind. And what about Hanwa Defence (South Korea)?

            Mr Wallace agreed on the need for “urgent recapitalisation”, but said the government was already investing £34bn into the army’s equipment plan between now and 2033.

            “The criticism of ‘it needs to happen now’ is these things don’t ‘happen now’,” he said. “There’s no magic wand, there’s no factories whirring away like car factories where you just press buttons and they come.

            “There are only about two countries on the earth that can sustain almost constant production lines – that’s China and the United States. Of course we can seek to buy from abroad, but then there won’t be a UK defence and aerospace industry and we won’t be able to necessarily give our troops the exact equipment they want, so we always have to make that balance.”

          • Well of course that’s how Parliamentary politics started out but developed into the formation of parties for various reasons but mainly for reasons of focused cooperation. Even until recently the myth was still being pushed that we were supposedly voting for individual candidates rather than Parties thought difficult to remember that now even if the concept of local constituency based MPs harks back to that and the relationship to local voters pushed. Even if I considered voting Labour I would never vote for their sitting MP here so I feel this system has in its present form certainly had its day, others will no doubt differ depending on what they think of their MP. However can’t see that we will ever go back to voting for non party individuals it would be a shambles in Parliament and incredibly difficult to determine who best as a candidates is closest to our own policy considerations I fear. But would love that for Upper House elections I have to say.

          • This isn’t anything new tho. And the MOD leaks these reports to the press in order to get more money. Heck I think every year they ask a Yank to make a similar comment and they happily oblige cos they want us to spend more on defence too. Mind you at least we can spell it 😎

          • Where it impinges on the safety & defence of our nation & servicemen, of course politics matters to defence matters Andy.

          • I suggest you either ask George to make you the sole arbiter of views allowed on this site or accept people will criticise whatever party makes mistakes in our defences.

          • No need for that, only last week I listened to a discussion on 5 Live on changes that were post 2010 or so and how those changes have in some of the protagonists views with offered evidence how these changes fundamentally worsened the running of things as they now stand. Can’t remember exact details but it’s not the point it’s just that many very educated and prominent experts will claim on various fronts that is the case. Of course we can all argue the toss and agree and disagree with such arguments, but my point is that the claim he made does not deserve to be treated with the throwaway dismissive contempt that you gave it for whatever one’s view on such matters, the claim in general has some arguable validity and have proponents only an idiot would call ‘stupid’. Twelve years ago I could generally walk into my well staffed surgery and book a doctors appointment generally within 3 days well before Covid that stretched to 3 weeks in a now badly staffed surgery and getting even worse now of course. The reasons can be argued to the cows come home but the seriousness of that change simply cannot be ignored or any criticism of Govt for it be called stupid. Fa t is our major competitors spend more per individual on medical services and Govts have a responsibility for that esp when they have been in power for so long.

          • Hi Rish!

            Don’t strain your neck too much try to look up at us, you overpromoted, out of touch accountant!

          • Money does in fact make the world go round. Need and value can also be quantified in terms of money.

            I see a lot of comments here about increasing spending budgets for this and that. So much for outgoing. Has it been considered where the income will blessedly rain down from?

        • It would be nice to see an increase in the budget, Germany France have started to take there’s serious,Time we did the same, as the MOD has been the back up piggy bank for HMG since the collapse of the cold war, The problem would be equipment costs and replacement, and people power, a lot of soldiers are leaving because of filling in for the strikers,married quarters being a joke and pay being crap, so big money is going to be needed which i doubt we will ever get or even see…….just my opinion anyway..

          • The MOD has for many year not owned them and the investment is poor actually. The MOD should never have sold the MQ off and really invested in some better quality homes with older ones refurbished to a high level. Now they are in private hands the investment has been poor. Pay well really they are on par as servants of the crown. you dont join up to get rich.

          • If you look at the way maintenance is paid for the costs are excruciating for abysmal quality.

            In the real world there is enough money to do the job properly. It just isn’t spent very well.

          • Contracts on privatised parts of the state (in this instance Forces Estates) tend not to be written in favour of those paying for the new service (the government). In some cases the undue haste in out sourcing a service has led to poorly written contracts and the abuses that follow. Anyone familiar with the expense of moving a bog standard printer from one part of a small office to another will know what I mean.

          • Well at least we now have removed the part Chinese owned element from the Company that was responsible for managing the Wi-Fi of out Min of Defence sites … let’s hope they haven’t given it to the Russians mind … where are you MKJohnnie when we need you to keep tabs on us.

          • Germany has rolled back in when it now aims to get to 2% of GDP, something the U.K. has always met.

            But the Baltics are right, 2% should be the floor, not the target.

          • Added to that Pensions shouldnt be included, nor should the nuclear deterent costs…well not the weapons costs at the very least.

          • Well they are all wrong then.
            Wasn’t it Osbourne who started that accounting ‘sleight of hand’?
            Isn’t it only us and France in Europe that have the nuclear ‘button’-the rest don’t have that to consider neither should we.
            As I consider that to be more of a governmental deterrent not a simple military one (athough instrinsically linked) and the expense should be considered thus.
            Thus providing a more level playing field for comparing conventional military budget.

          • Uptick.
            We will always need a conventional military but a nuclear back-stop is politically debatable. The former shouldn’t be sacrificed for the latter.

          • Well if you have more experience and knowledge of the subject than NATO headquarters staff then fair enough… but I seriously doubt that.

          • Not sure it’s about experience and knowledge though, it’s really a matter of opinion and of course it benefits the US in doing it that way it makes them look a lot better in comparison to others by comparison. They are not going to allow a change in the way it’s calculated in NATO and no one is going to get them to do so, it’s not exactly a democracy whatever the nominal message of equality and independence.

          • It always has been a minimum spend. It’s suited politicians in Europe (including the UK) to reframe it as a target. The Cameron government, and Michael Fallon in particular, were particularly guilty in this regard. The PR has worked to a degree, we are expected to celebrate every time spending just about tips over the 2% when the reality is it’s inadequate.

          • Mmm no we haven’t. We bottomed out at 1.95% for 3 years of the last decade.
            In 1970 it was over 7% +.

          • According to this source, 7.09% was actually in 1960. Then it gradually reduced to 5.20% in 1970. Interesting to see that spending under successive Conservative governments from 1979 to 1997 actually fell from roughly 5% in 1980 to 2.5% in 1997. When Labour came into power, it stayed at roughly at that level (2.5%) until the Conservatives came back to power in 2010. Thereafter, it gradually slipped again, bottoming out (as you mentioned) below 2% in 2016,2017 and 2018. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/military-spending-defense-budget

          • I would go even further an say it’s not just the fault of the political parties but also the electorate..Politicians respond to things that the electorate say are important..very few members of the public are willing to put their hands in their pockets for defence spending.

          • Jonathan, very correct in what you say ,we the people of Britain (ALL OF US)have been put in danger by these fxxxxxg idiot politicians, edu ate these political arseholes but better teaching tricks to a cabbage but then Westminster is full of cabbages

          • Agreed,
            democracy demands an informed electorate capable of balancing the arguments and reaching a reasoned answer.

            Today, all we have is red versus blue and who can be bribed the most.

            I think a lot of this could be solved by getting rid of parties and voting for a representative on the basis of their values, CV and platform. If they didn’t have a rosette to pin on their breasts more thought would be demanded. But that still wouldn’t stop a candidate trying to bribe a sector of the electorate to get elected.

          • Indeed, I’ve always said that the house of loads should be filled with directly elected experts in different fields and not affiliated with a party. Also the executive should be separate from the legislative in that the prime minister should be directly elected.

          • Hi Jonathan,

            That is a great idea. I have long thought the House of Lords should be elected with elections held mid-term just so the electorate could give the sitting government the thumbs up or, more likely, a kicking…

            However, the House of Lords has features that the House of Commons does not. Firstly, it keeps working until the job is finished and secondly there is a wider range of people with notable expertise who also sit in the Lords.

            Perhaps if there were a number of ‘roles’ within the Lords that required certain qualifications or experience so anyone who stood for those seats had to first pass a simple recruitment process – perhaps as simple as a CV sift. Key workers. engineers, scientists, military people could all be included and represented.

            One problem with not having parties – and I’m no fan of our political parties as you may have noticed – is that it makes voting more difficult. Would every voter have to vote for an expert in every field? Would you appoint experts based on voter priorities in which case defence would still be overlooked? Having parties at least allows seats to be shared proportionately across the expert pools that are off a fixed size.

            Not an easy challenge, but I agree with you that having real expertise within the political process is vital especially in the modern world.

            Cheers CR

          • Having a the worst performing economy out of the major developed countries does not help , I’m a bit surprised no one has mentioned that on the comments yet lol

          • Unfortunately for us who care, politicians know very well they can announce defence cuts and Whitehall won’t be filled with 100,000 protesters. Top brass only complain publicly when they have retired, and less and less of the general public have close ties with the military due to us having much smaller Armed Force’s these days. Public affection and support for the Armed Force’s is still very high, but fewer people are aware of the actual size and structure of the services.

          • Well yes, but, there’s been more than a few Braid who have spaffed our money for quite a few projects, one such, costing merely £5Bn and counting.

          • From https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

            In the late 1940s defence spending dropped all the way to 6 percent by 1950, and then rose over 11 percent in the Korean War. But then defence spending began a long decline, passing through 7 percent GDP in 1959, 6 percent in 1968. Defence spending dropped below 5 percent in 1987, and then held at about 4 percent in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

            Defence spending declined to 3 percent in 1997 and has slowly declined ever since. Defense spending is budgeted at 2.53 percent GDP in 2021.

          • But also then you have to add the CASD and pensions…so it’s even less. Defence was once a very big employer, now it’s not so much.

          • Don’t say that David, your destroying the narrative that Tory’s are strong on defence and labour cuts it. You will upset a lot of people on hear with your Truth 😀

            Labour been out of power for 13 years and people are still blaming them for cuts.😀

          • Hi Jim

            Nice try, you should be a politician with that double speak, but do stop twisting the narrative.

            “that Tory’s are strong on defence and labour cuts it.”

            The Tories are as crap on defence as Labour are, nobody can claim they are “strong on defence” look at the cuts since 2010.

            “Labour been out of power for 13 years and people are still blaming them for cuts.”

            Yes, with good reason, as the military was gutted in that era before damned bloody Cameron, Osborne and the rest came along to finish the job.

            Quotes below from Gabrielle Monolini which outline nicely what happened in that period.

            “For RAF, Labour delivered cuts including entire Jaguar and Sea Harrier fleets plus several Tornado and GR9 Sqns. Joined F-35 but only got to order 2, the instrumented BK-1 and BK-2. Against promises of 232 Typhoon, they diverted 24 to Saudi Arabia and capped Tranche 3 at 40.”

            “For the Army, the Labour era was the wondrous period in which MRAV and TRACER became FRES, then FRES UV, then no, let’s go with FRES SV instead. Summed all together these programs delivered exactly 0, zero, and i repeat literally zero, operational vehicles.”

            “History tells us that the much celebrated SDR1998 promised 32 escorts (down from 35) and 10 SSN (down from 12) which became 25 and 8 in the 2003 Review and by the end of the Labour era were actually 24 and 7. With just Boat 4 of the Astute class ordered in the whole Labour era.”

            “The ASTUTE class procurement also began well before Labour went into power. The only class that is truly daughter of the Labour era is the Type 45, beginning with the decision to pull out of HORIZON tri-national project in 1999 and finishing with decision to cap at just 6 in 2008”

            “People often associate the Royal Navy amphibious fleet with the Strategic Defence Review of 1998, but HMS Ocean and the 2 LPDs of the ALBION class were actually ordered before it, under Major’s government. Only the program for the BAYs reached its contract award under Labour.”

            When Labour got into power in 1997, RAF had 3 frontline maritime patrol aircraft squadrons (plus OCU), 120, 201, 206. 206 disbanded in 2005, and 120 and 201 were ghost squadrons without aircraft when Nimrod MR2 was withdrawn from service in March 2010, just BEFORE the election.

            When Tony Blair won election, UK had 20 frontline (OCU & OEU excluded) fast jet squadrons (6 Tornado F3, 8 Tornado GR1, 3 Jaguar, 3 Harrier, 2 Sea Harrier demi-sqns). SDR98 cut 1 F3 and 1 GR1 Sqns. Further cuts followed, leaving 12 Sqns by 2010 (7 GR4, 2 Typhoon, 2 Harrier. 1 F3)
             
            Yep. Worked a treat last time. Not a single major armoured vehicle programme made any progress in whole 13 years of Labour. TRACER-MRAV-FRES-FRES UV-FRES SV rollercoster sure fills me with confidence for what Labour will do. MARS and Future Surface Combatant, too!

            So Jim, every time you or anyone else peddle the myth that somehow EVERYTHING is the Tories fault, I shall be here to provide a few facts!! 😄

          • I seem to remember the Tories blaming Labour during the world recession in 2008 when the UK was not the worst performing economy out of the developed nations , as we are now the worst performing economy out of the developed nations I would like to hear the excuses , and I’m not a extreme lefty myself.

          • I hear you, Jim. Another interesting fact, is the stat illustrating that the most money actually spent up to 2020 was in 2007 and 2008 when Labour were in power. But what is really interesting – no, dismaying – is the climb in actual expenditure in exchange for smaller armed forces.

            Whilst we all know vast sums have been squandered on certain projects (plus I often suspect that we are charged far more for defence equipment than we should be, e.g., I once had a fire in the engine compartment of my car. The garage estimate was very pricey. When I later told them it wasn’t covered by the insurance, I was subsequently offered a drastically reduced estimate …), modern weapon systems are simply costing more and more than their predecessors. We definitely need to get smarter on how we spend our defence budget and to help us in this regard, maybe we need re-evaluate our role within NATO and adjust our procurement priorities accordingly.

        • I think we will see a slightly more than token uplift. It won’t be huge but it will be clear.

          A lot of it will, I am pretty sure, be allowing spending to be pulled forward lowering long term costs in line with NAO recommendations which gives them political and economic cover as they can say it is responsible and saves money.

          The mess army procurement is in is really an army created omni shambles.

          • Agreed, money isn’t really the problem. The army has wasted billions on not replacing the A fleet because it keeps changing its mind on what it wants. It would be in a lot better condition if it never left boxer in the 1st place .

          • Fully concur w/ your assessment. Revised defence guidance, AUKUS plan and commitments, continued drawdown of defence materiel to support UKR, etc. Too many events aligning to be mere coincidence; knowledgeable parties are weaving this tapestry. Big Ben is obviously a player, but Jeremy Hunt could conceivably be playing a deep background, supporting role. 🤔

        • Hi Nicholas

          Can you confirm source of the latest remarks from the US? I had read anything but would be interested in hearing what our cousins said.

          Thank you.

        • They didn’t say it was inefficient but had been so poorly funded and equipped over the last 20 years that we can no longer be considered to have a Tier 1 fighting Army (same said about Italy and Germany). Only ones NATO one they rated was France.

          • I heard that. Some American was saying the brits were called the borrowers as they always needed things to make up for things they didn’t have.
            Bit embarrassing. 1998 force levels would be suitable now.

          • Maybe but the Americans always want our help and support – especially when it comes to Special Forces.

            Still, the point is valid. Our Armed Forces have always been woefully funded and supported by successive governments who seem to only want to spend the absolute minimum and that’s being generous!

            For decades defence hasn’t been taken seriously and I fear that even with what is happening now on the European continent, it still won’t be. Lip service is free.

          • Yeah, not a lot of Delta guys driving round the desert looking for scuds in 91 but apparently we had to “borrow” F15 for the strike mission.

          • That’s kind of how a coalition works. US generals not often the sharpest tools in the box. They can’t even defend their own capitol from an angry mob.

          • France, are you smoking crack. They don’t even have inter theatre lift capability. Light weight colonial policing force sure but heavy mechanised force come on.

          • Certainly not, I’m a CAMRA BLOKE. Don’t blame me for this one it is the reported statement of WHAT a U.S. General told Ben Wallace. Besides which the inter theatre lift capability is part of the RAF.

            https://www.forces.net/politics/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-among-worlds-top-level-fighting-forces

            “The US general is also said to have used a term to rank the strength of a country’s military, with tier one regarded as a top-level military power such as the United States, Russia, China and France. 
            The US general is said to have told Mr Wallace that the UK military is not a “tier one” fighting force and is “barely” even tier two.
            Tier two would describe a more middling power, with less fighting capability such as Germany or Italy.
            Regarding the size and capability of the British Army, the source is quoted as saying: “Bottom line… it’s an entire service unable to protect the UK and our allies for a decade.” 

            I neither agree nor disagree, but our Army is in a bad way. Other than the Special forces and the AAC Apaches I struggle to name one part of the Army that is properly equipped, manned or funded.

            I have no idea if is a true statement but can anyone name me one part of the Mechanised equipment or Artillery that is less than 20 years old ?

          • Sorry Daniele you just hit it on the head and made me laugh.
            The only Mechanised kit we have bought in the last 20 years increases our ability to clear mines for, provide a bridge or bury the rest of our outdated kit.
            Priceless 🤣

          • I agree our army is in a bad way but it’s primarily because it spent 15 years as a colonial policing force supporting US foreign and security policy. If a mistake was made it was 1)invading Iraq,2) trying to sustain 10,000 troops in the mountains of Central Asia for a decade. Our only reason for being in either operation was to support our closest ally and that support has bought us nothing. Every administration post Bush has gone out of its way to shun the UK.

            Wallace was asked about the “US General” on sky and he ducked the question. Pretty clear there is no such person so his theoretical opinions on either ours or the French military don’t matter.

            Our Airforce and Navy are more than capable of defending the UK. Our army is primarily there to help others. Other than the Russians cutting a few cables in the Atlantic which are actually US cables mostly the UK faces almost no direct military threat.

          • I don’t disagree with your assessment of how we got into this mess. I’m not going to second guess BW or if this is true or not. There is too much History of tactical briefings by Unnamed sources to say it is or isn’t. On the other hand I would be surprised if someone, somewhere wouldn’t like to cause a bit of mischief as pay back for us backing UKraine with CR2’s.
            But the simple fact is our Army is now in need of investment and a lot of TLC.
            As for your comment about the U.K not facing a direct military threat that is completely irrelevant.
            We are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a founder member of NATO and are obligated to fully contribute to a system of mutual defence.
            Article 5 ties us to help defend those that are directly threatened.

      • Indeed, hunt is not saying much, just seems to be getting on with the job, which can be seen in a lot of defence contracts being signed and swift action, clearly the in year spending taps have not been turned off and the MOD hobbled.

        Hunt is one of those politicians I do respect, even if I disagree with him on somethings. He did a lot of good in some areas of the NHS that the public don’t realise ( a lot around safer hospitals at the weekend and increasing the number of hospital drs working at weekends….which hacked the BMA off, he also stuck with the portfolio even when he was offered a better job).

        • I agree about the weekend staffing in the NHS.

          It was horrendous that big hospitals were in the hands of mid ranking doctors (OK called consultants but not really consultant calibre) for 2.5 days a week.

          If anyone wanted to get the NHS using resources better a proper 7 day per week health service would be a start and stopping the Friday lunchtime exodus…..the physical resources, non emergency operating theatres, are simply not used for 2.5 days per week.

          • I believe that was Hunts aim whilst Health Secretary – and I agree with it completely – people dont pick and choose when to get sick . Trouble is he didnt want to back that aim up with the necessary funding…surprise surpise.

          • Agree the weekend hospital issue is fundamentally an interesting and necessary challenge. We also need to do more work on developing primary care at the weekend as well as social care…effectively the whole system should be seven days a week. With critical services 24 hours a day, we still have life saving services that are not 24/7 because we just don’t have the correct number of qualified staff, if your going to have a stroke that needs surgery either live in a major city or have it during the day.

          • Many years ago, the BBC showed a program “Can Gerry Robinson Fix the NHS?” Its a good watch if you can find it to see how wasteful of its resources the NHS is, and how the BMA have too much power.

          • I’ve seen it.

            Some of it still rings very true.

            To be fair some of the consultants were rolling their eyes at the incompetent middle managers.

            But yes, the midday Friday ghost town problem was there.

      • I’m making 80 US dollars for every hr. to finish some internet providers from home. I absolutely never thought it would try and be reachable anyway. My comrade mate got $13k just in about a month effectively doing this best task and furthermore she persuaded me to profit. Look at additional subtleties going to
        this article.. https://Americanliberty7.blogspot.com

  5. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Great news and about time too!
    Will this missile be transferred to the Type 26 during construction?
    As a side issue, have any of you picked up the US General that informed Ben Wallice that the British Army is no longer a “top fighting force”?
    There is some truth in that statement when considering the defence cuts, the UK must increase defence spending.

    However, a bit unfair considering the UK always step’s up when required. The US does appear to want us onside when it comes to engagements.
    Cheers,
    George

    • My guess is that the statement is aimed at touching a few nerves in UK Gov and convincing them to increase defence spending. I read earlier on Sky News that the US are recommending we increase by at least £3 billion a year.

      Probably fall on deaf ears, though, knowing the useless cretins in power right now.

      • Perhaps the headline should be “Government increases navy’s budget after army brings shame on country with false reports”

      • Good to see the Poles increasing their defence spending on the Army!

        “The war in Ukraine makes us arm ourselves even faster. That is why this year we will make an unprecedented effort: 4% of GDP for the Polish army,” Mr Morawiecki said.

        Raising defence spending to 4% “might mean that this will be the highest percentage… among all Nato countries,” he added.”

        • And this pretty well sums it up.

          “The Ministry of Defence has a dismal track record of procuring weapons and equipment, from aircraft carriers and fast jets to boots and lightbulbs, with billions of pounds spent and – at times very little to show for it, in particular when it comes to the army’s armoured vehicles.

          Countless attempts have been made to improve the process, with some successes.

          There are examples of the military resisting the desire to chase an exquisite, bespoke piece of kit that will cost more and take longer to make over something that is not quite as gold-plated but works and can be delivered within the desired timeframe.

          Yet it still takes around nine months simply for a business case to be approved by ministers and the Treasury – let alone implemented.
          It means that the around £46bn annual budget does not go as far as it should, leaving the armed forces less capable.”

          • Exactly!

            “The Polish-Korean cooperation has bloomed in recent months. Significant acquisitions of Korean armored vehicles are a substantial part of a partnership between the states.

            Poland is seeking urgent reinforcement and modernization of its armed forces. With Poland’s industrial capacity unable to deliver as quickly as the government would like they are looking to make off-the-shelf purchases en masse.

            The latest of these might be the Hanwha Redback.

            The Armament Agency has been seeking a proper solution that could be adopted in a short time.

            Hence, the talks with the Korean military industry have commenced resulting in communicating initial interest in the AS-21 Redback IFV that Hwanha Defense has offered to Australia.

            This manifestation resulted in the first AS-21 being delivered to Poland in mid-October and entering field tests with the 19th Mechanized Brigade, part of the 18th Mechanized Division, located in eastern Poland.”

    • The US is just about to exceed Italy in terms of debt to GDP. Perhaps they should consider their own military expenditure especially on their army before slagging off others.

    • No they will go to the T31’s as they are the GP warship. If the RN gets chance to purchase more then the T26’s may also get them. A real boost to power projection at sea for the RN with a weapon that can also hit land targets which the old harpoon just could not do. Pity the T45’s did not get the TLAM that space was made for but at least they are getting suitable weapons outfit that will enhance their primary role and ability to defend a task group. More of the same and a land battery to go back to Gib that once had such a weapon to close off the Med.

    • The Type 26 will have MK41 silos…the 11 sets ordered is the exact number of type 45s and type 31s we will have once the Type 23s are retired. So I would bet they stay on the type 45s and get moved to the type 31s.

      • Potentially interesting choreography shuttling NSM between T-23, T-31 and T -45, until final status achieved in early-mid 30’s. 🤔

        • Hi FormerUSAF,

          The RN is well used to that choreography. Used to be that RN ships going to sea had to wait for another one to return to port so that the weapons could be cross decked… I kid you not.

          I think the situation has improved somewhat in recent years, other on here would have a better idea than I…

          Cheers CR

          • Peace dividend…

            Politicians are very good at forgetting the lessons of history, and even better at kicking the can down the road. Net result, too many gapped capabilities and silly levels of munitions, plus lots of other shortfalls. Madness…

            Cheers CR

  6. Any mention of how many missles we are getting? I’m guessing they will have to do test launches, so probably more than just to to fill up the 11 ships but will be getting any reserve stocks.

    Also am I right in thinking this can also be air launched, now that we have it in our inventory wouldn’t it make sence for the raf to aquire some.

    • I don’t think we will ever, or should, know the size of the inventory. But it is a reasonable baseline assumption that there is a pipeline with spares in it to allow rotation for maintenance.

      11 is enough sets of 8, to go on all the T23/T45 that are active at any one time.

      That assumes that 6 ships are, at any one time, in dry dock or other refit which is a sensible number.

      I would **guess** that T31 and T45 will be the long term users of this system as 6 x T45 + 5 x T31 = 11 ships.

      So I would also **guess** that T26 would use its VLS rather than the box mount.

      The maths are then very different for a CSG which would then have say 3 T45, 4 T26 and 2 T31 which would give 136 slots that were usable for land surface attack. That is not counting the ASTOR and CEPTOR systems that would be carried as well.

      • Yes agree the numbers of sets ordered tie up to well with the T45/T31 hull numbers to be an accident. It’s good to know that T31 will become an effective ASuW/strike frigate, it gives it a clear place in the escorts and creates a well balanced fleet if we assume the T26 and T45s will spend most of their time tied to a carrier or amphibious group.

        I don’t think anyone can still go on about the the T31 not being an effective ship, 6500 ton hull, 8 strike/anti ship missiles, AAW missiles with a short range area defence capability as will as ASuW capability, just about the best AAW gun set up anywhere, a hanger that take a rotor the size of a Merlin, good soft kill, reasonable sensors, ability to take a marines and there kit as well as a mission bay. It’s a better GP frigate than the majority of nations will have.

  7. That’s got to be a record for the MoD from announcement to fitting. Mind you I think the modern MOD and especially the army has been too bogged down in its “process” when it’s comes to acquisitions.

    Now our American overlords think our army is s**t perhaps things will change.

  9. Good Lord. Now that was fast. What can be done when the idiots get their finger out and profits for a MIC company are not 1st priority.

    Reminds me of some of the adjustments for Corporate.

      • I think T26 is getting FC/ASW (or whether that called these days) for anti surface, so that would be reasonable. Whether some of the RFA or T32 will get them too, that could be a future decision.

        I’m delighted at 11. Eighteen months ago we were talking about 3 sets for 5 ships.

  10. Remember when Adm. Radakin said to the Defence Committee in 2021 that we couldn’t put them on ships until 2027 so it wasn’t worth it? I wonder what happens when the Chief of the General Staff next turns up.

    • I also remember the line that we don’t need them anyway as the Royal Navy uses subs to sink ships. A bit like we don’t need ATGM’s on IFV’s because we use tanks to kill tanks.

      • You have to remember these are strike missiles, the RN will still were ever it can sink ships with subs and air power. 100nm rang is all about strike, as ships cannot really maintain kill chains to other ships beyond the radar horizon ( 20kms or so depending on the hight of the radar).

        • Subs, yes. Air power is tougher. I’m not sure we have anything longer distance than Sea Venom, do we? Storm Shadow was going to be upgraded in capability at one point and that might have included maritime attack, but I think Spear 4 was redefined and it just got a refresh.

          I’d agree that land strike is a more likely use case, and I might have agreed with you about radar horizons and kill-chains too 20 years ago. With the advent of ship-launched drones, satellite targeting and networking, I don’t think it’s true any more. That a plane or drone or even a Wildcat helicopter (soon, let it be soon) can pass targetting information to a ship miles away, directly or via satellite, will become a commonplace. The Americans have had this capability for years, and we should have had it too, but we cancelled the NEC programme. It’s coming back and IOC for the RAF to pass targetting information is already there (open source declared in 2021). Whether the RN can pick it up and fire, I don’t know. I’m convinced that kind of kill chain will extend via ship-launched drones within the shelf-live of these missiles.

          • With sea venom and distance it’s pretty spot on as the small ship flight would still be under the radar horizon at launch ( 20km) as long as it’s flying low and range is provided by the small flights range so it can kill a ship from 100miles away from the escor. I agree possibly kill chain may improve, but the reality of navy warfare is that ships are going to be hiding from each other, they will not be radiating also there is a round 32,000 square miles in a circle with a radius of 100miles so it’s an obscene proposition to find anything with a drone TBH, then you have to identify it etc. it’s not likely navel engagement ranges will change that much. But having anti ship missiles on escorts is a much a statement of intent as anything.

            As for the RAF providing targeting information to the RN, I would much rather see the RAF have capacity to undertake their own anti surface warfare strikes, we should really see the RN getting this capability for typhoon..it’s a big gap.

            I agree at some point we may well see the ability to increase the range of the kill chain. But at present ships killing each other at ranges of 100miles+ is still tom Clancy land.

  11. Nice. It’s a bit mental that the T-23’s now have more anti-ship and stand-off strike capability than our Strike Carriers.

    • One day there will be aeroplanes to fly off them and perhaps under the RN’s control to give them the real punch. Real weapons will be added to the F35’s as stealth is only good for initial strike and even then does not make them invisible at all.

  15. The news that that the UK defence industry is no longer capable of producing Naval missiles and has to rely on a small country like Norway must be deeply worrying!

  17. Any thoughts on what

    “in collaboration with the Norwegian government.”

    refers to?
    Is just that Norway had to give export permission, or that the Norwegian Navy is advising on use, or are some of these coming from Norwegian government stocks rather than waiting for manufacture by Kongsberg? 🤔

    • Isn’t the US adapting all F35s for NSM with Norwegian input?

      Should that be a fact, US, Norge and Brit F35s would become pretty potent.

      Happy to be corrected.

      • The Joint Strike Missile (JSM) is being developed from the NSM and is being funded by Norway and Australia. Lockheed Martin have agreed to integrate it into the F-35.
        The US isn’t currently involved but Kongberg has teamed with Raytheon to offer it to the USN.

        Its a different missile, design changed to fit into F35 bay, longer range, larger warhead.

          • No probs, Google is my friend 😉 but a good call-out as I hadn’t read much about the JSM.

            If I’m looking at what you are, then you have experience of some odd shaped frisbees!! 😆

          • I think there is a quick likeness with the F117… it’s a second look, as in, am I seeing things 😉

            Today, I’m a shop worker, who has had 10s of NATO aircraft overflying my roof on their way to Spadeadam.

            Pairs, normal. 1 and 2 hunters, quite normal, 2 vics 6a/c.. very unusual, but 2 Blackhawks chunddering over… wtf moment?

            Striding Edge has a memorial to USAAF crew who gave their lives, not sure the Lakes would celebrate more and 2*3 a/c, a minute apart… Top Gun 3 is being filmed??

  18. Don’t celebrate just yet. Somerset’s Harpoon racks have been removed as seen in the pics, but NSM has not yet been fitted. Somerset sailed from Devonport earlier today just minus the racks……….

  19. Impressed with the speed of this. Hallelujah!! Ony 5 frigates to get them but presumably the newer ones. All new frigates to get this new ‘punch’ as well hopefully.

  21. Speedy stuff, all of a sudden RN escorts now have a strike capability, that’s really significant.

    I would also imaging these are going to be easy to shift over to the Type 31 as they replace the the type 23. So they will end up very decent ASuW/strike assets as well.

  22. Now this is up in the air thinking and in no way a causal link but the number of sets ordered is very interesting 11 sets for the type 26 and type 23 is not an unreasonable number. But it’s a very interesting number when you consider what ships we will have that can use these once the Type 23 is retired…the type 26 has MK41 silos so will not likely use these…but type T45 and T31 would benefit ( if we assume that they T31s are not immediately pulled in for a refit that includes MK41 silos)…that equals 11 ships that are likely to have use for these in the 2030s. It suggests to me that the assumption is the RN will be using this missile for some time, as well as the fact it will be moved to the T31.

    • I’d bet money both Sea Ceptors and NSM will be moved across together from T23 to T31.
      The T26 is due to get FC/ASW once it’s operational.

      With T45 getting Sea Ceptor and NSM to its existing armaments it’s getting to be quite a well armed ship.

      And people will no-longer be able to make the ridiculous allegation that the T31 is just an OPV.

      • It alway was a bit ridiculous and completely ignored the capability the T31 was bringing..possible the best close in AAW gun fit of any escort, CAMM,( which provided a short range area defence capability and Mach 3 ASuW capability) a Merlin sized small ship flight, Space for marines and mission bay..infact it was almost a perfect patrol frigate, now it’s also a decent strike asset.

          • I do mean radius.

            Assuming the ship is in the middle of the circle the sanatisable area is determined by the range of the missile which becomes the radius.

            Various authorities give SEA CEPTOR’s range as exceeding 50km. Although I would guess that was at low level.

            Which is a good umbrella for sheepherding STUFT.

    • The only VLS on T23s are the CAMM launcers. There’s no VLS for anything else, so bar a major refit which is hugely unlikely or worth the expense at such old age, they must be fitted in canisters similar to the Harpoons.

      • Yeah – I guess I was thinking ahead a little rather than about the T23 – So they’ll drop into the same amidships deck space as the Harpoons do on T45 and then I wonder what will happen on T26

        • The T26 will get the FC/ASW which is under development, the NSM was bought as an interim measure between Harpoon leaving service and FC/ASW entering it.

          I suspect the NSMs will follow the Sea Ceptors, being transferred, after each T23 is decommissioned, and installed onto the corresponding replacement T31.

          (With sets of NSM on the T45s, which are already being up-armed with Sea Ceptors.)

        • Interesting the Australian and Canadisn T26s seem to be fitted for 2×4 NSM above the mission bay in addition to whatever goes in the VLS, including latest TLAM or LSRAM. RN could do the same if delays with the FC/ASW but this missile if just the one type will cover both LA/AShM roles.

  24. Quicker than I expected but essential kit for our precious few escorts. A disgraceful dogs dinner gapping the capablility.

  25. For once the MoD has demonstrated what can be done if you buy good kit off-the-shelf and leave it alone. If we had ordered the BAE CV90 recon variant – instead of Ajax – twelve years ago we would have plenty of them by now. And an Amercian General would not have to humiliate Capt Mainwaring by observing that the British Army is no longer the effective war-fighting machine it once was.

  26. The headline says “New anti-ship, land attack missiles fitted” while the Tweet from HMS Somerset says “Work begins to upgrade our anti surface warfare capability”. So which is it?

  27. I am seriously impressed, someone wake me up as I am day dreaming. Announcement to being fitted in 9 weeks !
    But I am going to just say that maybe we should not get too excited, they need to trial it and that will take time.
    So maybe I am being a pessimist but I’d give it a year before we see any mass installations.
    Unless Norway has realised their best immediate way to increase their maritime defence is to increase our ability to help defend them.
    I really do like Norway they are pragmatists, realists and remember who their friends are.

        • Hi Roy,

          Looks to me like they are trying to fit the new missiles around the ships operational tasking schedule. They have taken the Harpoon launchers off at a convenient moment – saves having another ship tied up along side for an extended period of time.

          As such I’d say the MoD / RN are being sensible here, but yeh I agree the story headline looks a tad previous. I guess someone got a bit over excited like the rest of us.

          You party pooper you..! 😀

          Cheers CR

      • Putting in this interim system is great news and, once the T26 comes online with FC/ASW, I’d like to see the T23 NSM sets transferred to T31 to increase their lethality. NSM is becoming a bit of a NATO standard to some extent so users are more likely to see good in-service development and support longevity which should mean it’s not retired from service prematurely. Prompt action here, a good move all round.

  30. Well that is all manner of disturbing. It implies the RN does foresee the need to launch a few in anger in the near future.

    • I’m not sure about that. There’s also a deterrent effect. After all, we’ve had nuclear missiles on our submarines for decades without foreseeing the need to launch a few in anger in the near future.

  38. Ship one, more to go! Keep going! T45 might even be able to take 4×4 launchers…we’ll turn it into a pre-T83 “lite” yet… and upset all them AAW purists!! Lol. Just stirring!! Good news. Carry On 🇬🇧 🛳!

    • I doubt the MoD would stretch to more then 8 per ship. As long as the SSM fit does not detract from SAMs the more the better…

  40. I assume the 11 sets will be rotated through the fleet of 17 escorts ? Or are they permanent on the T45s and the last 6 out-of-service T23s ?

  42. Astonishing very quick .. I remember all the doom and gloom crowd saying the ships will have no defence after harpoon yet again all proven wrong

      • Hi Rob, why can’t they fit the T45s with 32 CAMM for a nice round “80” with the 48 Asters? More missile shots at the ready.
        Won’t mention of not putting in the MK41s this time.. Lol 😁

  43. Unelievable some of the propaganda about defence spend when the UK the 4th biggest defence spender in the world and biggest in Europe 2nd in NATO .only US. China . India spend more .

  44. Good stuff, moving so quickly. I assume that, as the Harpoon systems were bolted on to them on an as-needed basis, the same will be done with NSM?
    The work on Somerset is therefore the fitting out and the “plumbing in” essentially.

    • I cannot see what NSM will need that the previously fitted missile did not have… power, data link…

      The launcher support will be new.

      • Likely the electronics will be different. I read a post sometime ago, from SB I think, about the change over from Sea Wolf to Sea Ceptor. The VLS control interface that sit between the CMS and missile was replaced when Sea Ceptor went in – big difference in size of the box.

        Did some reading and my understanding is that the interface box (my terminology) controls the launch sequence once it gets the fire order from the CMS, including passing the ‘mission data’ to the missile. This last bit is particularly important for multi use VLS systems like the MK41 as the interface box will route the fire command to the correct weapon and pass the data in the right format.

        This appears to be a NATO standard way of doing things. As I understand it, it means the various CMS systems across NATO do not need to store every last detail of every weapon that might be fitted to a ship. Instead a standard set of commands can be sent by the various CMS to the interface which then translates for the particular weapon making the weapon supplier responsible for safe launches… Not a simple rewiring job I’m afraid – but a damn site simpler than having to write a whole new module for the RN’s CMS.

        Given the generation difference between Harpoon and NSM I’d guess similar changes will be needed so yeh electronics and possibly wiring most likely will be needed.

        Cheers CR

  45. The headline is not correct, Harpoon launchers are being removed, such a speedy procurement proving too good to be true.

    • The photos are out of sequence. The headline picture is actually the NSM rack; the third picture on the Twitter feed is a Harpoon rack being removed.

      Overall though, great to see this and yes I agree – I couldn’t believe it myself when I read the headline!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here