HMS Portland, a Type 23 Frigate, has been fitted with 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.
#HMSPortland successfully embarked 8 Naval Strike Missiles, restoring our Anti-Surface capability. This is a big step forward in ensuring we are Global, Modern and Ready and further strengthens partnerships with our NATO allies @KOGDefence 🇳🇴🚀 #RoyalNavy #WeAreNATO pic.twitter.com/ijUpZ8nmzx
— HMS Portland (@HMSPortland) December 12, 2024
Developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA), the NSM can target both maritime and land threats. The NSM is distinguished by its airframe design and a high thrust-to-weight ratio, granting it superior manoeuvrability. It operates passively and has demonstrated exceptional sea-skimming capabilities and advanced terminal manoeuvres to elude enemy air defences.
A key feature of the NSM is its Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR), which accurately identifies and strikes the intended target, whether at sea or on land.
Technical specifications of the NSM include a high subsonic speed, a weight of 407 kg (897 lbs), a length of 3.96 m (156 inches), and a range of over 185 km (100 nm). The missile was originally named Nytt sjømålsmissil in Norwegian, translating to “New sea target missile”, and was later marketed in English as the Naval Strike Missile.
Incorporating advanced composite materials, the NSM is designed with stealth capabilities in mind. The missile’s lightweight structure is paired with a high strength titanium alloy blast/fragmentation warhead from TDW, containing insensitive high-explosive. This warhead is activated by a void-sensing Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze, designed to enhance its efficacy against hard targets.
The NSM’s flight characteristics allow it to traverse over landmasses, stay low over the sea, and perform unpredictable manoeuvres in its terminal phase, complicating interception efforts. The missile’s capability to engage both sea and land targets is enhanced by its imaging infrared (IIR) seeker and an onboard target database.
With the UK’s selection of the NSM, it joins several other nations, including Norway, Poland, Malaysia, Germany, the USA, Japan, Romania, Canada, Australia, and Spain, in deploying this missile system.
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.”
About time. For once BZ RN.
I hope we have got a good amount these new missiles not just a few and hope for the best
**of**
Good news, now get the rest of the T23s fitted out
Only 5 Type 23s will get NSM; all 6 Type 45s slated to get it for a total of 11 ship sets.
Makes sense. I assume the T23s that will get the NSMs are the ones furthest from end of life /decommisioning.
Aren’t the T23s NSM then going to be transferred to the T31s as they come into service? Why not some extra sets for the T26s too for atop the hangar as with the RAN and RCN T26s to complement the FCASW when that arrives?
I have not heard anything said about fitting NSM to T31s.
T26 will come with FC/ASW which will be much better than NSM.
Hmmm…wonder whether NSM (or successor missile(s)) becomes a military-industrial offset in any potential acquisition of T-26 by the Norwegians? FC/ASW is currently a Franco/British programme; it could prove to be an intelligent move to invite Norwegian participation. Kongsberg is, by all accounts, a competent missile manufacturer. 🤔
Italy is now also signed up to FC/ASW and there’s no good reason for other countries not to come onboard.
It’s not a huge overwhelming capability as only 8 missiles carried per set but it’s an important capability to retain.
Let’s hope some reloads are included with the 11 sets installed.
Useful stand off land attack capability
That’s 2 ships in 2 years.. how long for the remaining 9? At pace……. 🧐
Actually 3 as T45 just got as well.
Hi Jim,
Which Type 45?
Quote from Navy Lookout:
“The addition of the new missiles is more complex than just bolting on new cradles.
The old Harpoon power room has to be gutted and there are cable runs to be put in place
which required the operations room deck to be taken up to fit the wiring for the new NSM console.”
A slither of good news in lethality – I remember one or 2 ‘opinion formers’ trying to justify why the RN didn’t need these weapons.
I think you will find that most of those “opinion formers” actually said that a long range heavyweight Antiship missile was less of a priority than a fixed wing ASuW missile and an ASuW missile for the small ship flight..that also those same “opinion formers” also supported RN surface combatants getting a land attack missile..so a bit more nuanced of a discussion than you suggested.
Personally my view is and aways has been.
1) I support wholeheartedly the fact the RN escorts are getting NSM..but mainly because it provides them with a long range land attack option,which means that they are a great deterrent to bad guys. As the key role of our armed forces is to deter aggression, a land attack option is a need to have.
2) a heavy weight anti-ship missile on the escorts is a like to have on escorts but not a need to have.
Why is a heavyweight anti ship missile only a like to have…
1) almost all ship kills/mission kills from anti missiles have been via air launches missiles, most of these air launched missile kills have been via RN small ship fights, using light air launched missiles. There have been a very large number of surface vessels killed by air launched missiles.
2) since WW2 only a small number of ship launched anti ship missiles have been launched and almost all of these small numbers have been from small short range missile boats in ambush…I can only find evidence of 2 large surface combatants ever launching anti ship missile in anger..and one of these actually got its kill from using light weight duel purpose AAW missiles ( its follow-up shot with harpoon missed… true fact heavyweight ship launched anti ship missiles have killed more holiday homes than surface ships ).
3) There has been no instances ever of ships launching long range Antiship missiles in combat at other surface vessels beyond the radar horizon..single surface combatants getting a kill chain beyond radar range is still not something that’s been done in combat. So the need is a good ASuW option within the radar horizon.
4) RN vessels already had a highly effective set of ASuW weapons in that CAMM is a perfectly awful weapon for another ship to manage..each CAMM armed ship is actually a bit of a ASuW handful..range of 25Km + and a Mach 3+ speed. Means it’s the perfect shoot first kill first ASuW weapon for any engagement within radar range ( and all single surface combatant engagements will likely be in the radar horizon). Your CAMM volley will hit a surface target 25kms away in 23 seconds..a heavyweight anti ship missile will take close to 2 mins. Yes it’s got a light warhead. But a 100kg missile travelling at 2300miles an hour delivers a huge amount of kinetic energy before you bring in the warhead ( infact it delivers more energy than a Second World War 8inch AP shell). It also has a solid propellant that burns to the very last, this means any target will get the full kinetic energy+ load of rocket fuel+ frag warhead. Any ship hit by a CAMM in the machine space is a mobility kill..
Great post. There mayn’t be the kill history to now but our potential adversaries have them in huge quantities and they’ll use them as will our allies. The RAN here has just added TLAM and NSM to its Hobart’s AAW Destroyers, Hunter T26s will likely have the same. The new RAN light frigates being proposed have 8 to 16 AShMs which could be over the top but the perceived threat from China’s navy must be actually that serious. And JSM for RAAF F35A and P8s. Is there any update on what AShM the RAFs P8 might carry and the F35Bs Spear 3 are still some years away so why no interim like JSM?
We haven’t had air launched anti ship missiles since the 90’s. JSM not yet integrated on F35 and not capable of stowage for F35B. Only one missile available for Typhoon and one for P8.
rmj is correct. Lots of spouting off about ship launched being a dead concept and submarines were the only ship killers that mattered except for maybe also air launched
If only we had some …..blah..blah…blah.
End of the day it’s the missile that kills the target..not the launch platform.. and if nothing else NSM will keep those with basic Ashm capability. Similar discussion for UK based GBAD.
Lots of people rationalising heavy defence cuts as all being part of ‘a cunning plan’ based on UK/RN knowing better!
NSM is a great initial recovery from that position. Hopefully they will migrate to T32….and…waits for incoming cries of anger, River batch 2…or at least those on extended patrols in Falklands and APAC
This excellent analysis ignores drones and helicopters with radars. The radar horizon isn’t only dictated by the ship’s mast height any more. Even a Peregrine with an i-Master can target a ship at 100 km (more than the width of the Strait of Hormuz, although not enough to cover the width of the Persian Gulf in general). An RN Wildcat could detect ships out to the range of the NSM, if only they’d get a move on installing the helicopter’s data link so the ship could make use of it.
Anti ship missiles launched from frigates are still very much a secondary capability. If a frigate is near enough a target to be able to engage it then something went wrong.
Having anti ship missiles will deter those that have that capabilities from getting too close. 2 operational Astutes at anyone time is not sufficient to keep others at bay.
With multiple potential global flashpoints RN combatants operating globalily alone need a robust capability. Would strongly advocate for the designated Falklands vessel, any major vessel operating out of Gib and any vessel on solo patrol in APAC to have a reasonable / balanced capability to defend itself from a variety of contemporary threats. Those threats may include actors who would not present a fleet on fleet or combined ops threat but nonetheless have surface vessels with punch and reach.
Has HMS Somerset even fired a NSM yet in trials? She has had them fitted for some time now and to be fair, she’s had a lot of technical issues that needed to be urgently addressed but curious how that impacted/impacts IOC for NSM. Is this part of the reason for the slow ‘at pace’ for the rest of the Type 23s?
Is this another one of those questions that will either never be asked of never answered ? Are we still fitting 11 T23 & T45 vessels with NSM and have we ordered war stocks for reloads ?
No longer a porcupine then!