HMS Somserset, a Type 23 Frigate, has shown off her new anti-ship missiles whilst conducting ‘Replenishment At Sea’ activities with RFA Tidesurge.

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 an anti-ship and land-attack missile developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, the vessel can be seen sporting the fit out below.

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.”

File photo via Kongsberg

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

84 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t understand why a heavy anti ship missile was not part of the UKs complex weapons programme long before the Anglo French FCASW agreement. RN leadership seems to have deemed it a low priority until there was a sudden change of heart. Even after the first announcement of this interim solution, Radakin cancelled it in 2021 only for it to be reinstated a year later. Hard to understand the thinking processes.

    • Anti ship has been an SSN tasking.
      Harpoon was a nice to have but to do it effectively you need a helo to do target spotting for OHT.
      In the large scheme of things ASuW hasnt been needed by the RN surface ships as a primary tasking.

      It was also a good to have sacrificial lamb during budget cuts. Cut it, don’t renew it, save some dosh, look good in front of the Treasury whilst not having lost anything that stops your core primary tasking in the Surface ships.

      • Well I think the overriding factor was that until recent years the powers that be saw us living in an idyllic world where we were not going to have to take out enemy ships and thus however desirable anti ship missiles are they could as you say be excluded on cost considerations without that theory ever being tested. I would guarantee the concept that anti ship duties can simply be the job of our subs (stuck in port or otherwise) is a concept like so many before it that would become untenable in months of any serious conflict. Which thankfully now we have one far more possible those same powers that be have acknowledged and been forced to counter, explaining the seemingly farcical turns and about turns at the tipping point moment of the Ukraine War when such thinking over some months became unsustainable to even the most casual interested observer. Thus budget priorities changed to suit.

        • In the Cold War the Soviets had many surface ships, and most of our Frigates had Exocet, which I recall GB explaining, surprisingly, also had a surfaced ASW role!
          Post Cold War, with Russian ships protecting their bastions in the arctic north, our Frigates would not be anywhere near them, and AFAIK that holds true today.
          But, like you say, more unpredictable world now so a good addition.
          But with the way NATO will fight Russia in the GIUK and wider Atlantic, not a must for me.

          • The real threat to the RN will be China which has largest navy in the world and rapidly expanding bluewater capabilities, and any unforseen wars with unforeseen opponents that either do or don’t involve us with Nato or just on our own
            . China is quietly expanding its naval influence into the Atlantic sphere including the Carribean

          • With Labour insanely reopening talks with Mauritius about gifting them the Chagos Archipelago; I am considering how I can do my bit stop this endless and pathetic bending the knee to people in distant places. Its never been theirs. When will we stand up for ourselves. Just what will it take to get our country back?
            The Chinese will be in there with a monster bung within the year. We are run by dim fools or traitors.

          • I just don’t understand how these politicians think , for people who are supposedly smart . They seem to be mostly brainless accross all parties having no understanding of International trade and power politics. To give something away Tottenham to our enemies and weaken ourselves tomorrow .power, wealth is a zero sum game , you either have it or someone else does . As you say Traitors , really are Traitors 🙂

          • I think they are as Margaret Thatcher said ‘Frit’ that their lie is found out. They have led lives sheltered by the pockets of the state under which there is little contact with economic reality. These people are tutored to excel in the committee room and if lawyers in playing with words and meanings. They seek control over every sphere of the normal citizens life and family. I wont even try to explain how their reasoning goes with the way they reconstruct the past except to say its about power and whose votes they can garnish to retain it. That’s even why pictures go missing from No 10.

          • If labour (and our former tory masters) had allowed proper wealth creation over the past 40 years, we might have been able to just build our own island by now, give the Chagos “back” and everyone would be happy!

            Non-violent resistance to the Westminster cult would have been an option, but it would require alot of people to do it.

            (Certain people we do need to bend the knee to- Singapore can teach us how to bring back proper policing and the civil service, Kerala can tell us how to make a privatised health system. Heck even these empire apologies could teach us that liberalism has been causing problems since the 1700s- “Don’t worry, Tony Blair has changed labour for the better!” is probably the worst mistake the British people have made since we trusted the EIC to reform India without proper supervision from parliament. The left don’t change- they always want to meddle in systems that work, whether it be some Indian princedom or our once-flourishing grammar school system)

          • Why would Kerala teach us about a private health system ? It’s a mixed model second world system with a infant mortality of 7 per 1000.

            Private health systems are alway a disaster that cost a fortune and only work if your wealth or a healthcare provider ( as a healthcare provider I would be a lot wealthier than I am now if we had a private system but recognise our society could not afford it, because I’m an expert on health systems).

          • That’s over the top. A 2nd-world country with just over double our death rate? That’s impressive. We could learn from them. Where do their resources go? How are things spent?

            The point of capitalism is to extend the benefits of being wealthy to the non-wealthy. How many house cleaners could afford a hoover (or equivalent) 100 years ago? Everyone has access to electricity now.

            Your expertise is healthcare. Mine is history. Look at “La Longe Duree”- over time a private system could benefit the poorer orders if you are prepared to wait.

            That said, if gene therapy takes off, then the NHS is the best system for it. That could cut costs. I live in hope.

          • Just an example the cost of a private knee replacement costs between 12-25k…the cost of an NHS knee replacement is 4.5k…if you moved the NHS care to a private system you will be at least doubling the cost of our healthcare system..private healthcare does not work well I’m afraid, the profit motive linked to having no choice is a very poor bedfellow.

          • Capitalism market forces and healthcare work very poorly together always have. What I asked was what can we learn from the Kerala health system,1) that has a government owned primary care system, which it supplanted after the private primary care system failed ( the UK/NHS has a private sector Primary care system..not as you would think a public sector one…most NHS organisations are actually private sector organisations). 2) a second world system that works in a completely different way to a western first world system…I’m sorry but you have little or no comprehension in regard to the difference between a first and second world system. I do, it’s profound.

            When you link a first world health system with capitalist market forces you get very serious issues. The very best ( or worst example ) is the US system, a system of profound excess and profiteering. That costs the US taxpayer 4 trillion dollars in tax, insurance premiums and co payment. That’s at round 18,000 dollars per person per year…the NHS Uk health system cost around 4,000 dollars per person per year. The difference is all about market forces..that’s the reason no European system uses a capitalist market driven model of healthcare…yes every system including the NHS used a mix of government owned and private providers, but each system is essentially controlled in some way by the state, either directly or at arm’s length…if you let market forces drive a health system it alway leads to suffering..alway has…and I undertand the history of healthcare just as much as I understand the development, management and risk of modern health systems…I’ve spent 35 years studying, working in, developing and managing healthcare systems..both public and private sector.

          • Yes agree , if one leaves privatised business to their own devices when supplying public services especially funded by public money that cannot be avoided , such as healthcare , water , energy , trains and enviroment. Then things go down the pan and costs increase very quickly. The state regulation with strong good governance at the very top is vital for longterm success

          • Wasn’t surfaced ASW what Harpoon was originally designed for, and why the T23s ended up with them?
            Surface warfare is one of the areas in which our opponents appear to have a considerable lead so it is good we are catching up at last.

          • Don’t know. I just recall GBs Exocet comment and the ridicule heaped on him, and others, by a drive by shooting know it all who had no idea who he was lecturing.
            It was very amusing.

          • Both Exocet and Harpoon where designed with Surface, Air, and Submarine launched versions. It was just the Americans and the French trying to corner the market with their individual products. Not sure what inspired the RN to go from Exocet to Harpoon, maybe there was a good American trade deal to sweeten it?

            Or maybe we just wanted to screw the French?

          • Harpoon is a weapon to kill a whale. Harpoon missile was originally to kill submarines like the early Soviet Echo SSGN that needed to surface and then take time to prepare and launch their missiles.

          • Yes it was indeed, many people forget that even in the 1980s and 1990s many Soviet cruise missile submarines needed to surface to launch their antiship cruise missiles..echo 2 and Juliet class missile subs. That’s was around 45 platforms that had to surface..vs the later second and third generation SSGNs PAPA to OSCAR that could launch while submerged but they only had around 36 of those.

          • I agree wholeheartedly. Realistically, looking out from here, the only feasible threat is China and that is fading in the dawning of political realities.

            People who have served I treat with great respect (you could creep up on me in a tank) but in geopolitical terms I don’t foresee much of a future for this weapon unless there is a land attack aspect I am not aware of at time of writing. We need to reinforce and expand expeditionary war fighting alongside dependable allies. Blighty is doing sterling work, training and exercising with numerous countries and ensuring aggressors have to ask themselves ‘Do I feel lucky?’

      • I wasn’t just thinking about ship launched ASM but an air launched version as well. I think that no ship launched ASM has destroyed another ship, but air launched versions have, as we know to our cost. Spear 3 may be a partial answer, capable of inflicting damage, but given the known effectiveness of heavy sea skimmers, they are an odd omission. With the anti ship variant of FCASW unlikely to be in service before 2035, NSM will be quite a long term ” interim ” solution.
        Spear 3 is supposed to be operational on Typhoon from 2025, but the timetable for integration on F35 seems to have slipped again.

        • The RAAF has maintained an air launched ASM capability for several decades precisely for this reason as a deterrent to potential aggressors in the so-called ‘air-sea gap’ to Australia’s north.

          Both the now retired F111 and P3 Orions were equipped with Harpoon missiles. Currently the RAAF P8s and FA18 Super Hornets have integrated Harpoon missiles.

          However, the RAAF’s air launched ASM capabilities are in the process of being significantly upgraded. A factory is being built at at Newcastle north of Sydney to manufacture/assemble Kongsberg’s NSM for the RAN and the air launched Joint Strike Missile version for the RAAF.

          The JSM will initially be integrated on the RAAF’s 72 F35As. Unlike the F35B with its shorter weapons bay, the F35A can carry JSM internally for a full stealth mission profile. Ultimately they may also be integrated on the P8s once Harpoon is phased out of service.

          In addition the RAAF is set to acquire 200 LRASM to be integrated on the Super Hornet. The USN is currently integrating the LRASM on the P8 and Australia’s commitment to maintain lock step spiral upgrades with the USN will ultimately see LRASM integrated in the RAAF’s 14 P8s.

          This will mean the RAAF will have some 110 aircraft that are capable of using either NSM or LRASM antiship missiles.

          With a further $15 billion committed to upgrading the RANs missile stockpile (Evolved Sea Sparrow Block II, SM-2 and SM-6 and TLAM) the RAN will also have no shortage of options for land attack, air and ballistic missile defence.

        • Sceptre put a Sub harpoon into HMS Brave in a hulkex in 2004. I’ve a pretty spectacular video of it through the periscope somewhere.

    • I do agree that we need a long range anti ship missile, but we also need a long range land attack missile like a tomahawk that can be launched from a ship and not just from are subs

    • As gun said, in reality long range heavyweight anti ship missiles were considered a bit niche.

      You have to remember that the history of anti ship missiles started with the sinking of the Roma in 1943..that was air launched and almost every other attack using anti ship missiles has been air launched since then, although the last couple of years have seen the rise of land based area denial via anti-ship missiles in the gulf of Aden/Red Sea and Black Sea.

      As far as I’m aware there there is no example of a major warship firing a heavyweight anti ship missile at another major warships..it’s all small missile boats attacking large surface combatants within the radar horizon or large surface combatants generally using smaller missiles to attack missile boats at close range ( the U.S. used standard missiles, when it used harpoons they missed ).

      If you look at the sinking of large ships in the post war period it’s all either air launched Anti ship missiles ( again alway within the launch platforms radar horizon), land based area denial, torpedoes launched by submarines or in a new twist shore based surface drones.

      Simply put the chances of two surface combatants launching attacks outside of the radar horizon ( 20miles or so) is vanishingly small, unless it’s part of a surface action or CBG supported by lots of aviation ISTAR assets to allow it to find, track and develop a kill chain…at that point it’s probably better to undertake an airlaunched attack anyway…after all if you are sending aircraft to find and track the target, it’s far better if they simply attack and kill it immediately, than spend time setting up a kill chain. As setting up the kill chain will involve lots of time and radiating..all of which allows your enemy to detect and kill your assets.

      I suspect that in reality the navy was more interested in NSM as a way to turn its escorts into strike assets..which is a profound upgrade in both capabilities and deterrence…once a RN escort could do little other than naval interdiction as a threat…if it was not attached to the Ogin it could do little…now it can strike your land targets if you piss off HMG.

      There is also an element of Willy waving, that is profoundly important in Geopolitics and geostrategic balance…Willy waving is a very important way of preventing war…and a ship armed with heavyweight Anti ship missiles is a greater deterrence than one that is not. So NSM is a good deterrence even if it’s likely never ever going to be fired at a ship in anger…I would lay money CAMM would be more useful in most situations..a Mach 3 missile that can be fired in large numbers and gets to a target in 20 seconds is better than a couple of large missile that get there in 2 minutes…that’s why the U.S. in the past have fired more standard missiles at surface targets than harpoons.

      • Aren’t you aware Russia has containerised various SSM’s for installation on merchant ships. These would likely be tasked to destroy or warships in the event of a major conflict. Are you really suggesting we shouldn’t make a pre-emptive strike against?

        • What has the use of Q boats got to do with the question of long range heavyweight Anti ship missiles…do you think just because it’s a Q boat the laws of physics around detection and kill Chain change ? why would we send a frigate or destroy to remove a known Q boat..we would use air launched weapons and not let one of our escorts near it…it would not have any form of integrated air defence and would be profoundly susceptible to even a small ship fight armed with air launched anti ship missiles.

          Also do you the the RN would sink random merchants without evidence or identification and ensuring it had the evidence that it was a Q boat. Sinking random merchant ships without warning or evidence of cause that’s called a war crime.

        • Russia long had a policy of putting every SSM under the sky on their ships regardless of whether it was a good idea or not (see Moskva). They had a rather “Death Ride of the High Seas Fleet” attitude to their naval assets, essentially hoping they’d be able to get in under the American Carrier screens and fire off a lot of very big missiles in the hope that *something* would get through. It was an…optimistic(?) position that was really forced on them because their navies ability to air launch ordnance was simply not up to the task of matching the US Navies.

          • 100% correct. The US Navy’s approach was to launch waves of A-7s and A-6s. 8x A-6s would launch 4 Harpoons each and 8 A-7s would launch 2 HARMs each, timed to arrive at the Soviet group just as the SAMs were gearing up. A veritable firestorm of Anti-Radiation & Anti-Ship missiles.

          • Similar story with Echo, Charlie & Oscar SSGNs. Rely on getting in and launching before anti-sub Sea Kings, Sea Hawks & S-3s found them. Not to mention much quieter Sturgeon & Los Angeles SSNs.

        • Still need targeting info and it’s not an easy task especially for OHT. SSM engements are pretty standard fare irrespective of missile type.

          I have done Harpoon engagements in simulator mode on a Harpoon console in the Ops room on a T23. Had a few hours to kill as the on watch WEORM as did the CHOPs (M) who was the Operator, so I had a play. Bellow are some of the things you need to do and consider.

          SSM engagements are not easy or straight forward.
          A straight-line shot= Simple if the engagement corridor is clear, and you have a helo doing OHT. If it doesn’t have a data link it passes target data back over encrypted voice primary.

          Now, start adding in doglegs and pinwheel attacks from different bearings and it gets complex really quickly.

          You only have some much fuel = total flight distance
          Start adding doglegs and the flight distance remains the same but the straight-line distance from you to the target drops meaning you must get closer to the target to launch. In doing that you leave yourself open to counter detection and engagement.

          Then you need to fire missiles at differing times to allow for differing flight time so that they all arrive at the target at the same time (Simultaneous time on target isn’t just an Army Arty thing!)

          Then you also must factor in the terminal attack profile (V low sea skimmer or popup), missile radar activation range and search area. Will the target still be within the look basket of the seeker head, or will the target have moved? If the target isn’t in the seeker head look basket, then it cannot home on the target. Being Harpoon and it being dumber than a Clearance Diver in a maths test it will lock up on anything it sees in the basket. That could be a ferry, cargo ship, cruise liner etc in congested waters. Sinking a ferry in the Red Sea with 1200 pilgrims on it would not be a good look!

          And no there is no big red self-destruct button on Harpoon. Once its fired that’s it, off it goes until it hits something, or it runs out of fuel.

          NSM is way better. The IIR target database means if it’s not a preprogrammed target it won’t go for it. It also has a land attack capability which is probably more useful to the RN

      • and almost every other attack using anti ship missiles has been air launched since then

        No.
        Check the number of naval battles between Israel and Arabs (Stix vs Gabriel) and also those between India and Pakistan, Operation Trident for example. There is also the use of Sea Killer missiles by Iranian navy against merchants in the Gulf.

        Nitpicking Fritz X was not a missile but a guided bomb
        😛 HS 293 instead was a missile.

        • It’s true I totted them up…you have to remember the iraq war and US campaigns against Iran have sunk a lot of boats…infact the RN chewed through 25 on its own using air launched anti ship missiles.

    • Long years of sandbox wars basically made Harpoon replacement a very low priority.

      The requirement simply gathered dust, just like the Army heavy equipment replacement programmes etc.

      Effectively, virtually all the funding was channeled into keeping 10,000 personnel in the sandbox for 10 years, paying for UOR equipment for that mission etc.

      Anything outside of that was either cut, ignored or just allowed to gather dust.

      We are paying the price for that now, as we badly damaged our ’rounded’ armed forces in the process.

      • John, bang on the Money there was your comments. Not only was the capability lost, but also the skill set of using them in an operational environment.
        Fortunately with “seaborne” aircraft, we managed to do exchanges/postings with other NATO allies.

        • Cheers mate, it’s a long way back from decades of damage…

          I wouldn’t want to be Lord Robertson, being in charge of SDSR25, as its a poisoned chalice…

          Even if the MOD are granted 2.5% now, it’s not enough.

          It will take 3% ring fenced for decades to restore our armed forces.

          I’m expecting some serious cuts in the upcoming review.

          One Operational carrier and batch 2 F35 cancelled for one.

          • Labour sounded quite positive with defence spending after winning election . But now the constant complaining of having to raise taxes to cover a spending black hole , my confidence has been given a slap . I think we can be pleased if defence spending remains same in line with inflation next few years . Maybe a 0.1 % gdp increase here and there . I was hoping the Unions would be very proactive home grown defence industry , especially ships and aviation program increases .

    • Both the UK and the US didnt’ see ship to ship combat as a serious threat. China massively upping its navy changed the US thinking and that was only a few years ago (they were caught napping as well) and the UK is now playing catchup a few years later.

      Every military has a finite budget and need to focus its money on higher threats.

  4. I understand this has Land Attack capability?
    That is good. As GB says, despite the huge debates on here over the years about ship launched ASM, it’s a nice to have.
    A ship destroying another ship is a very rare thing.
    I consider an air launched ASM as a far greater priority.

    • Indeed though layered attack can be as important as layered defence at times especially as it in reality enhances that defence as a first important layer. As we know from the Generals/Admirals who have been there the best laid military plans tend to fail in the very early stages of a campaign esp as loses mount so flexible layered capabilities are vital for your chances of survival. Despite various lessons not sure we have truly learned that though much of that is budgetary enforced, certainly in peace time.

    • Naval warfare has been a rare thing. Getting rather tired of these confident assumptions when the only major naval conflict we have fought since WW2 was the Falklands (and need I point out that had Conqueror not been able to track Belgrano until she had crossed Birdwood Bank, those Type 42s with her would have got into Exocet range? If that doesn’t show how important AShM is, I don’t know what does)

      Submarines and carriers cannot be everywhere, and cannot do everything. This isn’t fantasy fleet/armchair admiral stuff. It’s basic.

      • Navel warfare has not been a rare thing, there are have been many navel engagements with many ships sunk and not a single one has included large surface combatants engaging each other with long range heavyweight AHSMs.

        The single most common engagement has been task groups or land based forces using air launched anti ship missiles and bombs…this is by a huge number..as in almost all.

        The second most common is land based area denial weapons ( that has been a new thing with the conflicts in the Black Sea, Red Sea and gulf of Aden, showing the power of land based area denial in enclosed seas).

        Third is the conflict between small fast surface combatants as well as the occasional attack on larger warships.. this is the one time heavyweight anti ship missiles have really been used successfully by navel vessels..but it’s always the small fast attack craft successfully using heavyweight Antiship missiles in an ambush role in the littoral..closing to generally within visible range and always within the radar horizon of a small boat. When large surface combatants engage in this warfare..they use either guns or lightweight very fast missiles..it’s why the USN has had a lot of success in using standard missiles in the ASuW role…they are more effective…

        the final one is torpedoes from submarines, noting that 3 large surface warships have been sunk using torpedoes in the modern age.

        But never has a major surface warship ever been sunk by another major surface warship using a heavyweight antiship missile

        This may because to get a kill chain beyond 20miles you need a lot of assets including air assets and once you have that sort of task group your simply better off attacking with those air assets and not using them to set up a complex kill chain….

        simply put surface combatant engagements are and always have been within the radar horizon..because they will only have one small ship flight each and the chance of that small ship flight finding, tracking and maintaining a kill chain is a profoundly difficult and time consuming…all the while that small ship flight is at risk of attack from a mobile and highly deadly integrated air defence system and it only has the horizon to hide behind…its far easier and less risky for that small ship flight to find, quickly attack with air launched weapons and run home than it would be to set the kill chain and wait around for a long range attack to arrive.

        You mentioned the Belgrano task group Type 42s getting into radar horizon range and launching anti ship missiles…the RN was actually far more worried about the dinosaur that was a 6inch gun armoured cruiser getting into radar and gun range of the fleet..because mission killing and sinking a monster like that would have been a nightmare…those old monsters generally took a vast amount of energy dumped into them to mission kill them..mission in killing a type 42 was not the issue. There are no more of those old dinosaurs left as they were to susceptible to air launched and sub surface weapons (very large cal guns don’t mix well with modern systems..one of the reasons the USN finally gave up on its battleships and the Soviet navy gave up on its armoured cruisers..they essentially self shocked).

        Essentially modern escorts ( unless part of a task group with lots of air when you get in that sort of range with modern combatants may as well use faster lighter more numerous weapons..than a couple of larger slower weapons. Consider CAMM, it’s a weapon that travels at over Mach 3 and weighs 100kgs..it imparts the same sort of kinetic energy as an an old 8inch AP shell into the hull of the enemy, as well as the 10kg burst charge. It takes 25 seconds to travel 20 Nautical miles a type 26 will have at least 48 of them, a long range shell from a five inch gun is half the speed…standard Heavyweight anti ship missile will take about 2 minutes to travel the same distance….what will be more effective and faster at mission killing..8 CAMM or 2-3 heavyweight anti ship missiles….and it does not matter if you sink the ship..all you need to do is mission kill it nothing more nothing less.

        But there are good reasons to have the NSM in order of priority.

        1) being able to undertake land attack missions is a huge capacity for RN escorts, it’s one of the things that US escorts have always been able to do..holding someone at risk of atttack is a great deterrent.
        2) Willy waving…it sounds silly but essentially a key part of deterrent is Willy waving ( with SSBNs being the biggest Willy waves in the world )..showing off a great big anti-ship missile is a great deterrent….that’s what harpoon was but a less practical weapon system for most engagements…the USN I believe has killed more surface combatants using standard missiles than it has harpoon ( because harpoon was better at hitting random innocent targets and holiday homes than enemy combatants)…but standard missiles don’t impress in the same way a heavyweight anti ship missile does.

        • You do not waste money on something for purely demonstrative purposes. Not for the cash-strapped RN. Those missiles were purchased for the inevitable moment when an RN escort finds itself outside of a relevant kill-chain. It will happen. War is chaos and bad decisions. With AShM it might survive that moment.

          Anyways, I got it wrong, the Type 42s were with 25 de Mayo due to their air defence systems. The former US destroyers Collette and Borie were with her. My mistake. I do not recall them carrying AShM

          • Yes you do, the single biggest defence programme we have is something that will not be used in a war, because it’s not really a weapon of war, it’s a political statement and that is the nuclear deterrent.

            Also the RN never used a harpoon in anger..it was essentially purely a display weapon ( infact it’s so shite at hitting the thing you aim it at it’s likely the RN ROE would never have allowed it to be fired) there is a reason the RN removed it from its SSNs…

            As for naval strike missile, it’s got plenty of uses beyond being a heavyweight anti-ship missile…but in the unlikely event that a RN escort ever gets in a direct missile engagement beyond the range of CAMM its there as an option…personally i think the only way the expense can be justified is that it makes all RN escorts land attack platform which is huge..if it was just about anti-ship missiles I would have preferred to see the money spent on Marte ER for typhoon first.

        • I think Drachinifel had a funny thought experiment that had Hood not been sunk in 1941 she might have survived in Royal Navy service until the Falklands. At which point Belgrano might have seen the final gun battle of Naval history as the RN might have said “A six inch gun armed Cruiser? We have a ship that was specifically designed to deal with that!”

          • interestingly HMS tiger was still in the reserve fleet during the Falklands and they did actually do some work to reactivate her. But they never finished…but it was quite a possibility that two WW2 era 6 inch gun armoured cruiser could have faced each other in the Falklands ( although tiger had most of her turrets removed, she still had one active 6inch Gun turret).

          • I can’t see that happening. I think I know what video you’re on about, and it is an amusing thought (for us anyway, can’t imagine the Belgrano crew would find eight 15″ guns funny) but for Hood or Vanguard or a KGV to survive that long you’d need to either make the Admiralty and government gibbering idiots or have the RN funded so well that the Sea Lords and Lords of the Admiralty have nothing better to do with the cash but spend it on a decades old battle wagon.
            Though a pair of carrier battle groups showing up alongside a battleship escort is even funnier I will admit.

        • Well the US decided to build a class of large surface combatant without them and at present has no dedication heavyweight antiship missiles organic on it..and in reality the USN has not really majored on escort based heavyweight antiship missiles…staying with the minimal fit of 8 harpoon..which is tiny when you consider how many mk41 siloed each US escort has.

        • USN ABs except for Flight 1 dont have harpoon.
          The few remaining Ticos do but they are falling apart on their last legs and soon to go.
          Tomahawk ASM went decades ago but is being brought back to VLS tubes.

          So I would contend that the USN wasn’t really that bothered about them until recently. It relied on Carrier air wing delivery of ASMs.

        • With you Frank. Despite the lack of ship on ship AShM history times are different now, they’re a lot of ships of all sizes with AShMs and if a conflict blows up they’ll be used! If others have them we need them too. Its just stupid to be outgunned and under missiled. The RN could put 2×4 NSM on the T26s too, like Australia and Canada have, it would free up a mk41 for other missiles. No decent weighty air launched AShM either, still waiting for Spear3 and for all the subs to become available. It will be interesting to see how “armed” the CSG 25 is.

    • The first of the NSMs have been retrofitted to the RAN’s Hobart and Anzacs to replace their existing Harpoons. HMAS Sydney test fired an NSM round at a Sinkex at RIMPAC 2024.

      Koensberg is building a manufacturing/assembly plant for the NSM in Australia in Newcastle.

      The RAN is also acquiring 200 Tomahawk missiles for the Hobart Class to add a long range strike capability.

  6. What is the timetable for the other ten sets that were ordered?

    Which T45 is going to trial it first?

    I find the slowness of this program baffling as the deck figments are not that complex to crane on and the controllers are smaller and emit less heat than the Harpoon ones….also less odd voltages…..

    Fire suppression will need altering but that isn’t the biggest job for an engineering team.

    Or are they just waiting for #1 to test before rolling out?

    Or is engineering resource so stretched that it is a low priority?

    Or both and something else?

    All very odd.

    • My thoughts exactly SB – what’s taking so long to add them to the other 10 ships? I know half the Type 45 fleet is in maintenance/refit but still, work began on fitting NSM to Somerset in Jan-23 and she is still the only one to have them fitted.

      I know Somerset had been in port for some time to fix rudder issues I believe, so perhaps couldn’t conduct trials? We’re fast approaching 2yrs from when the NSM announcement was made (Nov-22) and only one ship has them!

      Also, is the plan to cross deck the NSM from retiring Type 23s to Type 31?

      • On balance I think it is wanting to trial #1 to save wasting time altering physical fittings.

        If #1 had been done then rolling out the rest should be relatively quick…..hopefully…..

        I’ll be interested to see which T45 is the tails vessel for NSM.

    • Indeed, maybe it’s engineered capacity at the yards..seems to be a common bottleneck at present..the T45 refits + type 23 mid life refits and standard maintenance on old ships is probably taking its toll. Or they are just being hyper conservative and wanted it operational on one platform before roll out…personally I cannot for the life of me not see way they they cannot add it to the present refit schedule of the Type 26s as they come back out of refit.

      • For sure….choices, choices….if you only have so much shipyard capacity and it is being swamped by the trusty rusties….

        I think anything that complicates getting T23 back in service is a no and also the issue if #1 not having been trialled….

  7. With the rate at which the type 23 are being decommissioned wouldnt it make more sense if the new anti ship missiles were put on the type 26s being outfitted right now to save money especially since they will all probably be scrapped in a year or two at this rate.

    • Not really – the Type 26’s are still a few years away from entering service,let them get finished and trialled first then maybe a case can be made for putting NSM on them in lieu of FC/ASW – provided there is suitable space to fit them of course.

  8. A couple of questions come to mind:

    Has Somerset had a chance to test-fire these yet?

    When are the other NSM systems due to be fitted to other RN ships?

  9. About time!!!

    Amazes me how a 260lb warhead can be called a, “500-pound class warhead”.

    It is insane that some consider escorts with no surface warfare or ASW capabilities acceptable. Leaving ASuW to subs is insane negligence. If you’re an escort out on your own you must have anti ship missiles ready, not ask your enemy to wait until a sub gets to you!
    We’ve only got just 6 or 7 subs, apparantly none available at the moment, or at least recently, but c15 escorts. We’ll have just 12 or 13 escorts shortly before any new T26/31s arrive(even 19 were considered too few), so we need every escort to have at least basic ASW & anti ship capabilities, like practically every other nation gives its warships.

    • A CAMM armed warship has a considerable ASuW punch…a mach 3+ 100kg missile will cause a lot of destruction to any vessel it hits..infact the USN have been using standard missiles in the ASuW role for a long time…Mach 3+ is very powerful as it will cover 20 Nms in 25 seconds instead of the 2.2 minutes a harpoon takes..

  10. I think it is critical not only have the ability to engage the enemy’s warships, but I think some folks forget it is not just the warships we need to engage. In the event of some kind of conflict with China for example, taking out supply and troop transports will be just as critical as they attempt to island hop. Having top notch ASW and AA capabilities won’t be much use in that scenario.

  11. Re-helicopters, would it not be cheaper to order more Wildcats and update some stored Merlins rather than order 1 billion worth of new (Puma replacements) from Leonardo?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here