The Defence Secretary is visiting Norway, where he is hosting a meeting of the Northern Group of defence ministers onboard aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The meeting covered the implications of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, security developments in Northern Europe, and Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership applications.

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 defense systems by performing evasive maneuvers 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.”

A Ministry of Defence statement reads:

“Royal Navy frigates and destroyers will get a significant boost to their long-range precision strike capabilities following a new partnership between the UK and key NATO and Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) ally, Norway. Strengthening defence ties between the UK and Norway, the Royal Navy will receive the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), outfitted on a total of eleven Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers, in a collaboration with the Norwegian government.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“We have a long history of defence cooperation with Norway. This new agreement cements our partnership with one of our closest allies, whilst strengthening our Royal Navy with a new surface to surface strike capability.”

Replacing the Harpoon surface-to-surface weapon, due to go out of service in 2023, “the world-class anti-ship missile will be fitted to three vessels at pace and will be ready for operations onboard the first Royal Navy vessel in a little over 12 months. The collaboration will result in more ships equipped with the highly sophisticated naval strike missiles which in turn will contributes in enhancing the security in our common areas of interest”.

 

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

489 COMMENTS

  3. What happens to old missiles when they get phased out? I suspect the answer is “it varies” but I’m thinking specifically of Harpoon? Will they be life-expired at time of decommissioning and not be of much use for anything other than recycling the metals and safely disposing of the explosives or could they be sold on to less affluent friendly nations (with US approval I assume)? We’ve certainly sold on some pretty clapped-out vessels in the past so am wondering whether anything similar ever happens with missiles.

      • I think the urgency in getting three vessels equipped within 12mths suggests to me that they if at all possible indeed will be checked over and supplied to Ukraine in a timescale starting likely shorter than that.

        • No.

          If NSM was coming from anywhere it would be the Poles or USMC, who already operate land batteries equipped with it….

          These are definitely for the RN.

          There is no evidence that Ukraine needs NSM. They’ve already got the Russian’s combat ineffective in the Black Sea…

          • Hi Rudeboy. I think subsequent posts have detached our thread from it’s origin. We’re referring to the introduction of NSMs for RN escorts possibly freeing up the donation of the existing RN Harpoons to Ukraine.

        • Crews get very few opportunities to fire live missiles – much better to fire them off in training scenario than to pay a fortune to scrap them in a factory.
          I seem to recall a story that army Rapier gunners averaged firing just one missile a year during their posting with an AD Regt.

          • Yes, but if you’ve ever had to police the brass and then clean the infamous gas plug of an SLR… Mine mysteriously turned to single shot before exercises…

          • Ah, gas plug of SLR – I cleaned that many times from 1975-late 80s, possibly before they issued Scotchbrite. So much hassle from such a small thing.

          • I was a territorial engineer at the time and when doing basic training could not understand why those gas regulators were so crap. I thought it was because I was not cut out to be infantry in the middle of a freezing January night.

    • They get scrapped.

      The length of time a missile can be kept in service is dependent on a lot of factors. How its stored for example (temperature/humidity etc.), national safety standards, how often it has been mounted and moved around (this is particularly important for air to air missiles whose life is severely affected by being flown and exposed to G-forces, hence why you rarely see live missiles being carried except when really necessary). But also the manufacturers tested and stated maximum lifetime. You can refurbish missiles, so called re-lifing, to extend their life. This is essentially a total rebuild by the manufacturer where every component is checked and certified again or replaced as necessary. But this is very expensive. Often it is almost as expensive as buying new. The UK MoD for example opted not to re-life its Asraam stockpile and bought new Asraam recently. The reason was that it got new improvements, including a new seeker, removed obsolescence and was also not that much more expensive than a re-life of the old missiles. The same thing happened with the UK’s Amraam C-5. Re-lifing was not cheap so the RAF bought new Amraam D-3…the C-5 are on their way to Ukraine for use in NASAMS…

      One issue with older missiles is that rocket motors and explosives can deteriorate over time and crack. This can cause explosions, failed launches etc. They can also reach a point in which they’re not safe to move. Better to scrap them whilst its still safe.

      The UK’s Harpoon are old Harpoon 1C that have never had a re-life. They’ve reached the age where they would need extensive, and expensive, re-lifing by the manufacturer in order to be safe. But….they would still be an old tech missile, with very limited utility outside of WW3. The cost to re-life them and bring them to the latest standard would be that expensive that it is almost as cheap to buy an entirely new missile, with all of the other benefits that come from that.

      As to supplying them elsewhere….it all depends on the risk. Ukraine would probably be happy to take the risk for a short period of time as it would be worth it during a war. The potential benefits outweigh the potential downsides. This is also why every NATO member has dumped old ammo into Ukraine that they would not use themselves, the Ukrainian’s need everything and are willing to except a greater risk.

      • The Ukrainians are using Soviet era munitions: so older and more unreliable that NATO stuff would be for sure.

        Sometimes the issue with remanufacture is cost certainty. If you take something to bits and replace bits as needed it is impossible to give a fixed cost. Whereas the new buy can give a fixed price.

        Equally as you say buying the newer model can have a lot of advantages with better sensors, processors, storage, uplinks, control servos etc etc which can lead to better range when taken together.

        • I’m not sure Ukraine needs Harpoon. Moskva was sunk with Ukraine’s longer ranged Neptune and, after some ships spent trying to convert Snake Island into a Slava class, the rest of the black sea fleet has been cowering in Sevastopol.

          Maybe the recent drone attacks on Sevastopol will force the fleet to Novorossiysk? It seems like Ukraine has already won the naval war.

          • You may be right.

            On the other hand Ukraine is begging for missiles and it gives them another missile battery to put somewhere….

            I don’t see them saying no.

            I think Harpoon has a longer range than Neptune BTW?

          • Ukraine hasn’t completely won it, as Russia continues to fire missiles from it’s black sea fleet and is able to blockade Ukraine. However their effectiveness has been hampered by the loss the of flag ship and turkey refusing to allow Russia to send extra ships.

          • My point is – would a slightly longer range AShM actually put the whole Russian, Black Sea, fleet at risk?

            It might push them even further away from the Ukrainian mainland and so put more of Ukraine out of range.

            Whichever it is good for Ukraine as it creates a large sterile zone.

            The other thing we now know is that Russian CIWS is useless against relatively primitive missiles.

      • Thanks for the detailed and informative reply. As already mentioned by many others, in this particular situation a donation to Ukraine might end up more appropriate than following more usual procedures, but it was the standard practice (usual procedures) that I was most interested in so I learned a lot from your post. Thanks again.

      • Pretty much all of the above.
        Harpoon explosives, both warheads and rocket boosters will have additives in the explosives to make them safe to handle and improve storage times.
        All explosives have them and over time the additives deteriorate and the explosives become more sensitive to shock and handling. The deterioration is determined by testing the explosives over set periods of time and checking how much of the additive remains. this is done by taking a small sample and doing chemical and gas chromatography testing. You can plot the loss of additive on a graph and its a pretty much a straight line over time plot. From projecting the plot into the future you get a good handle on when the explosive begins to pose a risk due to an increase in shock and handling sensitivity and needs to be taken out of service.

        For example a certain user of 30mm ammo ignored this advice they where given by WOME ( Weapon, Ordnance, Munitions Explosives) practitioners and carried on using ammo that was deemed to be unsafe to use because the additives had deteriorated so much that the ammo was no longer shock and handling proof. (No I wont name who but it wasn’t the UK. The UK takes this explosive safety very seriously and doesn’t mess with it)
        When, during a firing the gun suffered an open breach explosion the user though better of the advice it had been given and binned the whole lot and batch of ammo and bought new stock.

        Explosives are safe until you forget they are dangerous.

  4. 11 vessels? That’s even better than previously touted. Fair play! Although 12+ months for the first 3, wouldn’t call that pace?

    • You have to have the ship in the yard (slotting in to both the ships deployment schedule and the yards work schedule), make physical alterations, wire it up to the bridge with possibly a new control station and update the ships software then test it out. Its not like the days where you just bolted a different AA gun to the deck.

    • Well I’m no expert but such things to me seem to take a few years to come to fruition normally and these missiles are in demand to other users. It’s why there has been on here bemoaning the delays knowing that Harpoons end of life is so near. Think we all expected yet another break in the capability.

  5. This is shocking. We were told Sea-Ceptor was all we needed, and that anti-ship missiles on ships were a deal-breaking danger to civilian shipping.

        • Do you know what model of seaking helicopter has been provided to Ukraine?
          I would assume it’s either commando or the search and rescue versions.
          Hopefully there are quite a few with hours on them that can be donated. So far I read 10 sets of crews, maintainers have been trained so far.

          • No idea mate. I’d assume that too, the ASW versions are I think long gone save for the odd instructional frame at places like Sultan.

      • Radar homers with no data link are a hazard to shipping as you cannot control what they are going for. A data link is a must nowadays

    • Who told you that?
      The fact sea ceptor can attack ships is a bonus not a replacement for a long range anti ship missile.
      The danger to commercial shipping comes from older anti ship missiles that cant tell the difference between an enemy ship and a civilian ship.

      • Quite

        I think this is really more to do with adding land attack capability as well.

        So if a land battery takes a pot shot it is in the knowledge that it will probably we wiped out.

      • “If a ship-fired missile hits a civilian ship, we will lose the war. We can only rely on submarine and aircraft-fired ordnance.”

        That has been said here and on the Thin-Pinstriped-Line. Those that have said that sort of thing should own up to being wrong.

        • The problem is the over the horizon kill chain when engaging a fast moving warship thst doesn’t want to be fired at. if off-board targeting isn’t available at long ranges through sending secure datalink tracking and targeting information back to the firing warship. If this missile can do that, then great.

        • Yes that has been said in the comments. As it stood with harpoon on the ships couldn’t be used to shoot at a enemy ship that couldn’t be seen. The model used was only really useful in open ocean with no other ships around.
          Now with this new Missile it brings options to the table.
          The preferred option will still be to hit a big enemy ship with a heavy weight torpedo from a sub as it guarantees it’s sinking.
          If the missile works as advertised that it can go 50+ miles and only hit the types of ship that it’s been told to look for that’s a massive improvement.
          Will it ever be used like that is a decision for future decision makers.

          • Picking NSM, was in my view the only realistic option for the RN. As it a dual role missile, so can be used against ships. But perhaps more significantly it can be used against land targets with pin point precision.

            I think this was the main reason why it in particular was picked over other missiles such the RBS15 etc. Is that it only locks on to a target it has positively identified against a library image. The two-way data-link also helps in this matter. If it fails to find its target, it has the ability to loiter, but also crash into a safe zone to destroy itself.

            For over the horizon targeting. When it is updated with the addition of BAe’s RF analyzer. The missile will be able to actively hunt for its victim. Homing in on to the ship’s comms, radar or data-link. Then using its infrared sensor to further positively identify the target.

            The missile could also get 3rd party mid-course and target updates. For example from a Poseidon, Protector etc.

          • Can only have pin point precision against land targets if it’s given pin point targeting information. What will provide that?

          • Our friendly US NRO I would imagine! Back when we were lobbing Tomahawks around much of the targeting data was provided by the US.

          • A combination of an inertia measuring unit and GPS will guide the missile along the waypoints to the target. It can also get mid-course updates via data-link.

            But finding the target in the first place can be done by numerous sources. A sniper team acting as a forward observer. A UAV providing optical imagery. An RC135 Airseeker or E7 Wedgetail using inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) techniques to recognize targets on a digitally mapped battlefield. Or simply using satellite imagery. Not forgetting perhaps the ship’s own helicopter, providing over the horizon targeting along with mid-course updates.

            The addition of the BAe RF analyzer, will give the missile the ability to hunt for targets. As it has a much wider field of view compared to the IR sensor. Kongsberg have stated that the missile has a loitering function. Which I can only presume, is that the missile slows down to conserve fuel whilst searching for its target. The RF analyzer will help a lot. As it could also be used against land based targets such as coastal radars, SAM radars or HQs blatting out comms. It can be programmed to search out specific waveforms, for example a Ku-band data-link that is used by some Russian SAM systems for networking eg S400.

          • Any idea where they are at with back porting the RF seeker from JSM? Konsberg say yes, it will happen, but I haven’t seen any timeline published as yet.

          • Kongsberg are focused on developing the JSM first. As they have been contracted by Australia to firstly integrate the missile on F35, F18 and the P8s. As part of the deal, the missile is being upgraded with BAE (Australia) RF analyzer. Kongsberg aren’t that big of a company with enough capacity to do two streams of development.

            However, Kongsberg have also stated that the NSM will also get the upgrade as a batch 2 version. They have not stated a timeline for it though. So it might become available as a modification once NSM is in-service.

            There might be a driver to speed up the development, as the US Navy have said they want the modified version of the NSM. So funding to make it happen will be available. We sadly don’t have that at the moment, so will have to get what’s available.

        • If the RN did hit and sink a cruise ship full of people it would be a war loser…harpoon was quite capable of doing that. The discussion was alway aircraft and sub launched weapons are preferred…yes still the case….If your frigate has a kill chain on an enemy’s frigate then they probably have the same on you and it’s going to be a bad day….better to sneak up on them with a sub or aircraft and kill them without your frigate ever engaging or being put at risk.

        • I’m sorry but you really need to think through your statement. What is the difference between a ship launched anti-ship missile and an aircraft one. For Harpoon, the only difference is the ship launched version has an additional booster rocket. To get it out of the canister/VLS cell and to get the missile up to speed, so that the turbojet can start.

          Agreed on a missile hitting a civilian (non-combatant) ship. This is the reason why NSM was chosen. See my earlier reply to your comment above.

        • I have said it and its true.
          I am not wrong. I maintained Harpoon and know the system.
          Shoot Harpoon in a busy waterway, at range and you cannot guarantee what it will hit. Subs and aircraft can do positive target ID and ensure its not a civvy ship.
          Only with a data link or an IR target library on a missile can you ensure it wont go for a civvy ship , only for a legit target.

      • Believe it was Gunbuster, in a post on another thread, who stated (in paraphrase) that distinctly different ROEs could exist for Police Actions as opposed to Global Warfare. Guessing from hints dropped that Gunbuster may have ultimately been at the CPO level. Learned early in career that senior NCOs truly understood policy better than many officers. 😁

        • Correct, the UK rules of engagement (ROE) are very specific about using lethal force in peacetime. In general you can only use it when you have either been fired upon and can positively identify the threat (shooter). Or that the threat poses an immediate threat to life, whereby no action apart from lethal force will stop them. Therefore you can fire first for example if you see someone bringing a rifle up to the aim and they have ignored your warning or there is no time for a warning.

          This rule also was used against spotters in Afghan. Although the ROEs changed to match the conflict. For example, where you could see a “bod” using a mobile phone to help walk in mortar fire on to a base. They weren’t armed but they were directing fire, so part of the kill chain and therefore a legitimate target.

          These ROEs apply to a soldier, a pilot flying a Typhoon or to a warship sailing through the Straights of Hormuz. However, once you’ve been fired at the gloves come off!

        • RN was never going to be given authority to fire a heavyweight AShM outside of WW3. Hence why Sea Skua was so successful.

          People often forget we’ve had 6 heavyweight AShM over the years…Martel, Sea Eagle, Exocet, Harpoon air-launched, Sub-Harpoon and Harpoon itself…the total number of these missiles fired in combat = Zero….meanwhile Sea Skua which could be used in a tight ROE situation has had 10’s of combat firings and has been a superstar…thats why the RN prioritised its replacement over heavyweight AShM

          Even the USN has struggled to find an opportunity to fire Harpoon. And when it has, it hasn’t been massively successful, partly due to the circumstances in which it was fired….Sub-Harpoon has never been used, and given its lack of popularity with Sub Skippers, for the rather obvious reason that it told everyone exactly where you were, I wonder how much it would have been used in a full on war in place of torpedos…

          • Ref Sub-Harpoon, much would have been dependent on where the targeting information was coming from. We always used to practice 3rd party targeting with Nimrod’s/Helicopters back in the day.
            They wouldn’t have used one if own SM sensors detected the target, we would have launched a couple of spearfish.

    • I was called an Armchair Admiral for questioning the omnipotent judgement of the Royal Navy that SSM’s weren’t needed when I-SSGW was cancelled

    • Your oversimplifying the discussions that were had by quite a degree. Like most questions in life there is not a right or wrong answer just options, shades of grey and whichever side of the mountain your looking at.

      The discussions your talking about revolved around the value of heavy weight anti ship missile on an escort vs getting an anti ship missile for F35B and typhoon. The discussions were not around the values of a strike missile as there was no individual suggesting that was not a good idea….thought they can be the same missile doing two jobs ( as here) they are very different capabilities, one really needed (the strike element) the other more of a niche capacity that the RN has never in its history used.

      some of the key discussions in summary:

      The RN has never fired a heavyweight anti ship missile anger and prefers other options. Because:

      Although you can have a heavyweight anti ship missile with a range of 100miles+ warships especially escorts don’t engage each other at such ranges…because it’s actually really hard to find a ship that does not want to be found: radar is limited by the radar horizon (around 20miles at sea level even for a radar on a high mast) and a ship at war will probably not be radiating anyways as it’s a good way to let everyone know exactly where your are and kill you. The ship also has to then identify and keep track of the enemy…the kill chain therefore limits the range of engagement….

      The best way to extend your kill chain is using an air asset, small ship flight or other…if that’s that case then you are better off the air asset actually firing it’s own organic weapons instead of loitering around for a far off frigate to fire something..with all the complexities of linking data.

      Harpoon and older heavyweight anti ship missiles were very dumb and if you fired it in a shipping lane or busy seas your just as likely to kill a load of innocents ( for a western democracy that is a way to loss a war, there is no getting away from that, it’s a characteristic of western democracies….) Harpoon is so high risk around hitting something else one harpoon actually managed to destroy a load of holiday homes…..therefore there was almost no conditions after the Cold War in which the RN would have fired one ( if the Atlantic was being contested you could see a reason for a dumb missiles being I used in the middle of know where )

      The constant claim that RN escorts were not able to engage surface targets….the simple truth was they can and could, the small ship flight, medium gun and CAMM gave the RN options at realistic engagement at ranges you can maintain a kill chain but sticking your frigate or destroyer that close to have a kill Chain is still a stupid move if you have any other option…far better to kill a ship with a sub launched heavyweight torpedo or an air launched anti ship missile, keeping your frigate or destroyer way away and hidden.

      so the general discussion was that an new heavyweight anti ship missile is nice to have if it’s clever, but some people ( including me) felt it was more important to get an air launched anti ship option for typhoon and F35 and a strike option for RN escorts.

      But and this is why this news is so welcome is what was missing from RN escorts and was making them less useful strategic tools was the strike option…USN ABs are a policy and strategic tools because of their ability to strike targets, if there is an AB in you area you know the US has options…..that’s not something RN escorts had before..now they will have and will be massively more deadly, because they can strike a target in another country if HMG decides its requires not because they have a newer heavyweight anti ship option, that they could actually use now. But that they would not want to be in a situation that they had to use (if you can maintain a kill chain then so probably can the other guy).

      So lovely they have a new ASuW tool in the the box, but the game changer is the strike element of the missile.

      • You are being extremely unfair. There were some that simplistically dismissed ship-fired anti-ship missiles, and NO ONE countered them. I have quoted from a post verbatim. Read it.

        Oh, and this missile existed at the time of all those arguments. I do not remember seeing any post by certain people saying “this missile would be nice to have”. Not even for land-attack. If you yourself said otherwise, then credit to you.

        Me and other people kept quiet because we did not want to be ridiculed. Before I left this site previously, I wrote a very long “I am wrong about everything” post because the clever-clever people constantly dismissed things I might have said.

        Will anyone admit they were wrong in turn? No?

        I will not be gaslit on this issue. Sorry. I have had enough. My side was wrong about almost everything. Will you admit your side was wrong about something?

        I am so so tired of people wanting their faction online to be perfect (and don’t say “no one wants that”. That is disingenuous. It is how people act that I am looking at here). Experts should be able to take criticism. I did.

        • I doesn’t matter if some people say what you write is wrong if you believe you are correct. There is often no definitive right or wrong answer just view points.
          My view point was that as it stood with the current harpoon model it’s was never going to be used over the horizon especially when other weapons are available.
          I still believe the NSM missile won’t be fired in the general direction of ships without a positive ID on the target and check no other civilian ships are in the area.

        • Hi defence, as I said I don’t generally think anyone is wrong. There is very rarely any truly right or wrong answer to anything, just options, views and opinions.

          i don’t think it’s wrong to have a decent new and clever heavyweight antiship missile On escorts I just think practically speaking It’s a lower likelihood need than other things…but as has been point out by a couple of commentators even if it’s just there because everyone else has them ( a form of willy waving) that’s actually valid as a deferent.

          my personal veiw is that for strike ( land attack ) range is very important ( more options and keeping further out) as is size of warhead and cleverness. I also think strike is a fundamental part of any modern large warship and something the RN has missed in its escorts due to budget cuts.

          for ASuW for me the range of the weapon only needs to match your ability to detect identify and maintain the kill chain, which is still in reality for a single escort only around 20 miles. What is really important is the ability to punch through defences both hard and soft kill. For that more and very clever is better than fewer and larger, so I think there is great opportunities in the west for networked missile swarms, that attack from all points targeting key systems, But that does not mean having larger long range Ashms is wrong and they will have their usages…especially where you have multiple assets and if you link them with drones and New ISTAR options ( ships having lots of drones as well as one small ship flight ) then you could see options for very long range engagements.

          You have to remember that the traditional western heavyweight Antiship Missile was very much designed to destroy a specific type of target and that was a Russian armoured cruiser that could take massive damage, modern warships are by their nature glass cannon s (not to sink, they are great at staying afloat and maintains mobility).

        • Unfortunately we often go over the same old ground, and there are going to be arguments where you’ve given your opinion on the subject before and can’t be bothered to do it again. I don’t need Daniele to post to this announcement to know he prefers air-launched, because he’s said it several times before.

          I think not replacing Harpoon was nuts, especially when the brass then went on to whinge about increased lethality, but I don’t see air-launched missiles as an alternative to ship-launched, especially in cash terms. Besides, we need both. I thought the plan had been to upgrade Storm Shadow to attack moving targets as part of the Spear 4 refurb, but either I’m misremembering or it was cancelled. Then there’s Spear 3, but there’s still no plans I’ve heard to put it on Typhoon (why not?). So the capability gap remains until Spear on F-35 or FC/ASW on Typhoon, whichever comes first.

          It’s just that we don’t need to repeat these comments every single time the discussion come up.

        • You were not the only one who who advocated the need for ship based ASuW and got it in the neck. It was like a Mantra that the best and only sane option was to put these missiles were on Typhoons and F35’s and not on ships.
          My argument was that we station ships in many areas where there are no airfields nor carriers, so what do we use.
          We put HM ships in harms way, they need to be able defend themselves.

          The answer is of course we need both capabilities, but perhaps until we do actually have sufficient numbers of F35’s to make it viable then at least getting them into service is a damn good start.

          There are some comments that the NSM warhead is to small.

          We just need to step back and look at who our immediate likely enemy is, and right now it isn’t China.
          Our potential enemy can’t build large surface warships at present in any significant numbers, by large I mean over 5,000 tonnes.
          The ships we would likely encounter are either small, cheap, heavily armed and less than 2,500 tonnes (So a NSM is perfectly adequate).
          Or some old, noisy ships that probably have a NATO sub tailing them every time they sortie.

        • If I can butt in here and correct you. I can tell you that I’m definitely one of the “AShMs on ship brigade” and have been for all my time on UKDJ. I think you need to read more posts more carefully and across many articles. There are many others like me, many more learned than me too and many others of different views. But it’s all good and in the mix. In the end sensible weapons choices have to be made and somebody has to be responsible for the having it or the not having it. I think as others do here that this is a bloody good decision and not too over the top. The RAN, RCN and Spain are ordering the NSM ahead of the RN, and USN and others already have it.

          • A ship has 24/7 presence. No aircraft does. If you have enough planes, you can approximate it, if not far from base. A carrier of course is a mobile base, but the oceans are big & carriers few.

    • That’s the beauty of Kongsberg’s NSM. It currently uses a high resolution imaging infrared (IIR) sensor to identify its target. It uses this sensor to compare targets to library images of the correct target, before locking on to it. However the future version will also have a development of BAe’s passive RF sensor, that analyzes radio, radar, data-links etc to also identify targets.

      The NSM meets the Royal Navy’s peacetime rules of engagement (ROE). Whereby you can only attack a target that that has been positively identified as a threat. The majority of missiles that use only a radar sensor to find and lock on to targets cannot do this. Unless the radar is operating in the milli-metric band. The radar won’t have enough resolution to correctly identify a target from its return.

      Furthermore the missile has a two way datalink. Which is used for mid-course updates. But can also be used by the operator to view what the missile’s sensor sees. Again used to positive identity the target.

      Perhaps just as significantly, the IIR sensor also means it’s much harder for active and passive countermeasures to decoy the missile. So unlike a radar guided missile that can be decoyed relatively easily by a chaff cloud. NSM can analyze the image, then ignore flares that don’t match the target’s library image. Thereby homing on to the true target.

        • By lots of means. If the target is at sea, ie another ship and within visual range, not a problem. However, if the target is beyond the horizon, the ship has a number of means of pin pointing the target.

          The first obvious answer is by using the ship’s helicopter. Which might soon be backed up a UAV operating from the ship. Where both can provide imagery back to the ship. Also with radar data from either an airborne active radar or what has been detected by the aircraft’s passive electronic surveillance (ESM) equipment. The ship itself using ESM can detect an active radar well beyond the horizon, depending on the frequency it’s transmitting.

          The ship will also have access to satellites, that can provide surveillance information. Thus giving the ship a reasonable idea of where the target is.

          If the ship is a T23 with a tail. This can also provide acoustic information on the target. Where using triangulation can give a rough range and bearing to the target.

          Another means is from a 3rd party, such as a P8 Poseidon.

          Using these means above will provide a positive identification of the target.

          Now I won’t go into how the missile’s digital library is produced. But suffice to say the ship will upload the target information to the missile prior to launch. The library will contain digitized imagery of the target. Which the missile then compares to the imagery produced by its infrared sensor.

          Soon this will also be combined with an RF library of what the target “ship” uses to transmit. Thereby further increasing how the missile can discriminate the target amongst a plethora of ships. But it also means the missile can be launched in the general direction of the target. Where the missile then uses the RF sensor to get a rough bearing to the target. Whereby the IR sensor can then detect the ship visually.

          If the target is on land, we can discuss that as well?

          • So could the library be fooled by making the ship look a bit different? Sheets of tin foil down off the mast type of thing. Obviously that’s a very basic and stupid example but hopefully it gets what I mean across.
            Change the shape of the ship a bit.
            I will admit I don’t know much about how the seeker works on NSM

          • Possibly. Imaging infrared (IIR) sensors work differently to infrared sensors in that they are more like a thermal camera. The light is focused on a charge coupled device made up from a grid of pixels. These allows the IIR sensor to generate high resolution images of a target. So much so that features on the target stand out and are clearly identifiable. This allows the missile to not only recognize the target when compared to library images. But to also aim for those specific features on the target.

            BAe have shown that IIR sensors can be fooled. This was demonstrated by their CV90-120T. That had one side covered in programmable hexagonal panels. These panels could have their temperatures adapted to change the identifiable shape of the tank, for example making it look like a car to the IIR sensor.

            Could this be done for a warship? Well, it is more difficult as the missile’s view angle of the target changes as it approaches. Which means the ship’s panels will need to match the missile’s view angle. Which would necessitate a design change to make the ship look more like a kayak with a semi-circular upper structure. No large gaps for cranes or masts etc, as these could still make the ship identifiable. So who knows, it might be doable!

          • Once the RF seeker comes on line, you have the added problem of also fooling it at the same time. NSM is also stealthy & completely passive, so you would need to be quick with the tin foil.

          • So send a slow and vulnerable helicopter with a radar that can be detected from dozens of miles away, to take a photo of the target so that a super state of the art, sneaky missile can come zooming up to the ship unawares?

            Or ask the Americans if they would kindly use one of their surveillance satellites to determine if any ships are around and what they are? Might as well ask the US to sink it too.

            Or ask the RAF with one of their P-8’s based in Scotland to kindly overfly the target and once again take a photo?

            Or expect your sonar to provide a positive id on a surface ship a hundred miles away?

            Mmmmmm

          • Just like for underwater, libraries pre-exist & are constantly updated. A great deal of time & assets are dedicated to this task. If you can recognise a T23, then it’s either UK or Chile. T45, it’s UK. If it’s a FREMM & in the Pacific, likely French. The missile will fly to where it’s told to & start searching. If it finds a F100 or Anzac, then it won’t engage unless the missile operator really stuffed up. It can be told to engage a target list, so you don’t need to be 100% sure if it’s a T23 or T45 or B2 River. They are either on the target list or not. There are not that many warships or submarines in the world & every opportunity to gain a fraction more knowledge is taken. Visual signatures, IR signatures, RF signatures, acoustic signatures, known locations, weakness, strengths, etc etc. That’s the advantage of a smart missile in combination with a smart ship & crew.

          • Helos have ESM. A ship has ESM. With 2 ESM receivers you can locate a target.
            The EOS on a Wildcat is scarily good and can pick out targets at a ridiculous range. Its also passive so you are not transmitting on anything.
            All 5 Eyes ships share Int info about shipping on the oceans . ROSAT, shore detection, aircraft detection, ELINT is also included. That info is readily available onboard and is a good pointer to where certain vessels are at any time of the day.

        • Can use helo or UAV for over the the horizon targeting if alone, also sattelites and ISTAR aircraft or drones. If part of a task force then add carrier air, helos and drones as well as networked surface ship and SSN ISTAR assets.

  6. Can the launchers be cross-decked in a similar way to Phalanx? If yes then would 11 sets essentially be kitting out the entire active escort fleet on the basis that, excluding a war-time surge to get pretty much everything deployed, 11 would be enough to equip all escorts on active deployment or working up to a deployment at any given time plus maybe even a few sets left over for vessels in port undergoing maintenance but available at short notice or will the systems be on a strict unchanging allocation to specific vessels?

    • That, I suspect, is the idea.

      Given that there are currently 6 T45 (two are in bits in dry docks) and 11 T23 that are notionally in service.

      Allowing for the usual rule of thumb that 1/3 are too out of service to be generated as a force, deep refit etc, then miraculously you arrive at a number of 11 sets needed!

    • The RN will need rather more than just the launchers on a ship to be able to use the missile system and only 11 sets have been ordered….

  7. 11 vessels is way better than the 5 previously outlined. Also was never originally planned for t 45. I’m guessing the number 11 is because longer term it will be 6 on the T45 and cross decking 5 on to the T31.

    NSM will give us commonality with US which also probably means it will be around for decades. “It’s A great compliment for us for the heavier FC/ASW weapons.

    • Long term that makes real sense.

      Interesting what RN will put into the Mk41 VLS on T26 then?

      In the short term 11 sets is 2/3 of the number of surface combatants that we have 6 T45 + 11 T23….

      So either way the number works.

    • Also commonality with the RAN.

      Australia announced back in July this year that NSM would replace the existing 11 ship sets of Harpoon Block II on its 8 Anzac and 3 Hobart class, ultimately also becoming standard armament on the Hunter class (eventually 12 ships with NSM).

      Australia has maintained an anti-ship weapon (Harpoon Block II also has some land attack capability) on all its surface fleet so there has been no capability gap.

      Maritime (anti-ship) strike has also been a consistent part of the RAAF capability with Harpoon being able to be launched from the now retired F111 and P3 and migrating to the current platforms Super Hornet and P8.

      Australia is jointly developing a new seeker with Konesberg for the air launched version (JSM) which can be carried internally in the 72 RAAF F35s.

      Alongside the LRASM the RAAF will have both long range/large warhead standoff (LRASM) and intermediate range/smaller warhead stealth (JSM internal carriage) anti-ship options.

      A RAAF strike package of 14 P8s each equipped with 4 LRASM (a salvo of 56 missiles) makes for a useful deterrent to any surface fleet.

    • Also the RAN and RCN adopting the cannister launched NSM which the RN T26s can too freeing up the MK41s and complement the FC/ASW and whatever else.

  8. I must say I am surprised. I thought harpoon would have it in the bag due to it being an interim missile only needed until 2028 when the new super duper missile is meant to be ready (can’t remember the name(. This will mean new canisters, new software, new land based training etc etc.
    I wonder what the cost is going to be? I’m going to guess £225m for everything.
    And fitted on 11 ships. I presume it’s going to be 8 per ship. So 88 + test missiles.

  9. I cannot believe that someone has actually made such a remarkable decision in buying this splendid Norwegian missile – whatever happened ?

    • Isn’t it wonderful when we don’t have endless committees discussing if the previous committee got its ‘non’ decision right. First Wedgetail now this, eminently sensible decisions that some will whinge about not being down to a formal competition but we all know are the sensible solutions. Not yet convinced that the ‘super duper’ missile will be ready by 2028 but now we have a good long term solution for present and future ships that won’t get it anyway. Has someone with half a brain taken over or is just the usual for Britain piss arsing around only happens when faced with brutal realities and imminent threats?

      • Uhh…the name is presumably Ben Wallace, plus a few reasonably intelligent blokes down at the Admiralty. Jeez, you Brits don’t cut other Brits much slack in the defense arena, do you? Hell, in the US, if we get it right by the third or fourth pass, it’s back-slapping and high fives all around! 🤔😳😁

        • Hey only low levels of praise allowed in any aspects of life. Makes brits feel all awkward if anything above a “good job” comment is said. 😂😂😂

        • Yes but to be fair the US has money to piss away on any old thing it fancy’s….go to the moon hell yea…600 hundred ship navy come on Soviets keep up ( whoops your bankrupt shame for you).

          Lets spend as much on one destroyer as everyone else’s spends on a 70,000 aircraft carrier….lots of money…..makes for less angst.

          • May be an apocryphal story, but a senior officer once stated to me that Rand Corp. had advised Ronnie Raygun that he could outspend Soviet Union in defense realm into bankruptcy. Thought provoking…🤔

          • No, simply my recollection of a conversation from 30+ yrs. ago, no idea where this officer is now, or even if he is still alive. My guess is that he read a Rand report generated sometime in early to mid nineteen eighties.

          • Relevant quote “There are no battles in this strategy; each side is merely trying to outdo in performance the equipment of the other. It has been termed ‘logistic strategy’. Its tactics are industrial, technical, and financial. It is a form of indirect attrition; instead of destroying enemy resources, its object is to make them obsolete, thereby forcing on him an enormous expenditure….”

          • Yes, it is certainly possible that my source could have misremembered his source as a Rand Corp. study. It was simply a snippet of a conversation that for some reason intrigued me. Never pursued a quest for the source, probably because at that point in the career, I was usually up to my ass in angry, hungry alligators. 😳

    • Agree Jason and surprised that the response here has been generally so muted. I thought there would be more cheering ringing from the rafters that this huge gap in capability is not only being addressed but so quickly!(was going to say expeditiously but sounds a bit pompous)😁

    • Could also be a sign of not being in the EU anymore, having to cooperate on various programs for R&D and procurement or simply being forced into opening every single project up for every company within in the EU to bid on to keep things ‘fair’.

  11. This is simply brilliant news and quite unexpected. It gives ne hope as I know the government has said in the budget announcement that it is re looking at the SDR.

  12. Great news. Good work Ben Wallace. Made my day. Commonality with the US and 3 ships equipped within 12 months.👍
    What with the order for Boxer remote turrets, Kongsbergs star is in the ascendant.

    • Paul, which remote turret for Boxer has been ordered?

      At the moment the RN seems to be getting a good Christmas, T26 Batch II, check, Fleet support ship three off, check, anti ship missiles, check, more F35Bs, check plus some other goodies.

      • Santa, or St. Nicholas (not certain which appellation is preferred in the UK) has certainly treated RN well during 2022. Perhaps Army and RAF in line for gifts/treats in 2023? All the good children have to be treated equally, to forestall any chance of jealousy. 🤔😳😉

        • I hope Santa has a big bag as the next tens of millions has also been allocated for Tempest. It also looks as if the RAF/FAA will get more F35Bs than thought. As for the Army well not sure what they might get but I know they are looking at the K9, it is expected that over the next ten years the army will get about £40 billion in new kit, it started with the new Apache fleet, CH2 upgrades, Land Ceptor, Boxer, Ajax (which GM can still not get right), ISR, M270 upgrades and some more goodies. Our Ben Wallace is sure bringing some rabbits out of his hat. I hope Mr Wallace has signed the contracts in such a way that any new government cannot get out off them.

          My biggest worry is that he has only two years left as he is damned good at his job, but the Torries will get their arse kicked in the next election. I sometimes wish that we could elect our Ministers of State.

          By the way I will say that your new Ford class looks good and welcome to our side of the pond, only a pity that she could not combine with the QE going on Ex. The combined carrier groups would have been well impressive.

          • If he becomes unemployed in the future, please send BW across the pond to us.

            Agreed, pairing a Ford class w/ a QE class should be sufficient for sea-lane control in any area other than SCS. Hopefully, Congress ponys up the requisite funds for full replacement of Nimitz class, plus a growth factor, to account for scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs.

          • Well at least we have some one right. Speaking about carriers how about the idea of a Ford with two QEs. The overall cost would be cheaper. A QE at surge can take 70 aircraft or 110/120 sorties per day and for every Ford you get 5 QEs. As a mix for a strike group it works with cost savings.

            As for BW, I would hope he stays where he is, he is doing a bloody good job. Served in the Scots Guards as an officer, mentioned in dispatches (no idea what that means in the States) and retiered from active service because he wanted to stay in the field with his troops. I know that feeling as once I was given the choice NATO HQ Brussels or Commanding Kosovo Field Comminacations, for me it was simple Prizen here I went.

            If BW does get removed from his postion in two years then I hope that NATO can find a place for him

          • Thanks, wasn’t very aware of BW’s background. He is one of a very few politicians whom I have been instinctively impressed by. Thought there were articles promoting his eventual accession to NATO Secretary General? Presume that might be a suitable reward, although he seems to thrive in an operational setting.

          • BW’s record in NI as a young officer was excellent. I suspect the Tories will lose the General Election in 2 years so hopefully BW will get that top NATO job then.

          • BTW, should state for the record that I am operating outside my wheelhouse when I speculate how USN CVNs and LPDs/LPHs may be employed in combat or how they might be paired w/ QE class. Do know for a fact that there were elements of US defense establishment that were pleased and relieved when QE class achieved IOC. Believe the terminology used was “two more for the good guys.” Believe USMC has stated publicly it wishes to maintain an active relationship via cooperation on QE class deployments.

          • There was specifically articles from joint chiefs of staff in early 2000’s specifically stating that they intended for QE class to slot in with US carrier rotation to relive pressure.

            In order to do this the ship required to have space for 36 fixed wing aircraft which was the normal compliment for a Nimitz class at the time (3 * 12 F18)

            That along with the deployment of F35B on LHD is one of the main reasons the US stoped deploying a carrier to 5th fleet.

            The US plans for CVN after USS Doris Miller become very patchy. Fords are massively expensive when you have alternative like America class and F35B. I can see the number of CVN dropping dramatically and increasingly being home based with smaller America class ships being forward based and providing presence.

            The USN is toiling for enlisted personnel at the moment and having 10,000 sailors wondering around in a CSG for nearly a year at a time is not helping.

            The USN won’t consider a QE class I.e something between a Ford and an America as it costs too much for forward deployment and it is a threat to CVN budget. They can afford a high Low mix of CVN and LHD. We can only afford one so a hybrid between the two makes sense for the UK.

            QE class cost 1/3rd what Ford cost but only because it’s built in a UK yard. If it was built in the US it would cost alot more.

          • You aren’t the only one. Even the USN are just coming around to the idea of pairing CVNs with “assault carriers”, at least publicly. I suspect the trials on USS Tripoli earlier this year must have been very impressive to make them ask the question.

          • Don’t be crazy man, if the US defence budget was run by someone who could actually budget then America would be so powerful it would have to leave Earth and move to Mars 😀 you may not be aware but US defence contractors are actually working for the CCP. 😀

          • The Ford class, in addition to several hundred B-21s, may be enough to give ChiComs cause to pause. Then again, it may not…🤔

          • I doubt it. The South China Sea is too important, it has become their main fishing ground and they have a lot of mouths to feed. I won’t be surprised to see Chinese oil/gas exploration/exploitation happening in a much larger scale in this area. Their Coastguard has effectively kicked out the Vietnamese and Philippines from fishing these waters.

            Taiwan will always be that boil that needs lancing. They are getting closer to be in a position to blockade Taiwans eastern seaboard. But they don’t have the depth, yet!

            I think the biggest issue may be the border to the north. Russia has expended and wasted a significant portion of its armed forces and ammunition stocks. It will take years to recover to the position they were in at the beginning of the Ukraine war. Which means militarily they are weak. Just over the border is lower Siberia. A mineral, oil and agriculturally rich land. It is also an area that Russia annexed from China. China has an agreement with Russia where it has sent thousands of workers to work there. Whole towns and communities are effectively Chinese with token Russian administration.

            What would happen if China looking at Russia’s weakened position, decides to administer this region themselves? How would the West react, it’s not Taiwan or the South China Sea after?

          • There is a small part of me that would believe that would be just desserts for Mad Vlad and the slobbering Orcs, although the rational part realizes this would not be good geopolitical juju. 🤔😳

          • The really interesting but unspoken question from my perspective, is what would happen post a hypothetical USN loss of one or more CVNs w/ escorts in a conflict in SCS? Certain that it would be a POTUS level decision, and the choices would span the entire option set. 🤔😳

          • I think BW is only good with the backdrop of the absolute clowns that make up the Tory party front bench. He earlier made a commitment to 3% and he’s folded on that.
            Labour will leave the defence budget as is because it’s right down at the NATO minimum spending level and no British party will ever break that.

            However labour is significantly more stable which means you won’t be getting a new defence minister and SDR every 5 minutes which is exactly what the MOD needs.

          • Problem is they may play the same trick as the Tories and chuck something else in the defence pot, Tories may do that before they’re out also and of course it won’t be reversed by Labour

            Thankfully, Labour made the carrier contract impossible or too costly to cancel. Hopefully the Tories have done the same with T26,31, Tempest, FSS, Dreadnought etc. Labour may need to find more cash to invest in energy projects with Shell and now SSE reviewing their investment plans for the UK. Defence is an obvious place to look and with yards being busy building ships freeing up capacity to manufacture turbine towers doesn’t cost votes or jobs so seems a logical way to go. LogicallyT32 has to have big cloud over it. If the Tories are serious about it best get it ordered ASAP.

            I won’t be voting for either of them as I’m tired of both the main parties with their outdated ideologies.

          • Labour has the same issue with defence the Tory’s have with the NHS, it’s budget is safe in terms of 2% but that’s it. Not much appetite in labour for boosting foreign aid budget either.

          • And with NHS budget nearly tripling in tge past 20 years it’ll bankrupt the UK in the next 20 unless politicians can have a sensible discussion instead of using it as a political football. Save our NHS by keep chucking money at it will not save the NHS ironically.

          • Unfortunately, BW is not the lead dog on the sled team, and if you’re not top dog, the view is always the same.

            Believe BW plays the hand dealt to him as well as anyone could to outflank rhe opposition in bridge it would be called a finesse.

        • No Santa, it’s the Grinch he has given lost of presents to the Navy and he is just about to give the bill to the Army and RAF. It has been the other way round since 1945 so time for a change 😀

        • Most say Father Christmas, but increasingly our youth have been Americanised and say Santa. I too hope that the RAF and Army do get some new kit in time for the next war.

      • Boxer has been or will be ordered to meet many roles – originally it was to replace Saxon (APCs) and residual FV430s (multiple roles/variants) and then it was to equip 2 x Strike brigades, since reduced to one (1st Deep Recce/Strike BCT).
        Now much more recently Boxer is to replace Warrior (IFVs and other variants), so those Boxers replacing WR IFVs all need to have a stabilised cannon (30-40mm).

  14. For a relatively small country I must say that Norway’s defence industry punches well above it’s weight – by all accounts NASAMS is performing very well in the Ukraine and as we see here NSM is doing good business too.

    It would also be nice to see a few ground based NSM systems deployed to the Falklands I think.

    • Yes between them and what a gulf between them in many ways, Norway and South Korea are really showing us just how you can run successful defence businesses which in many cases we have decided a Country our size is incapable of supporting. Really does show us up especially the ‘No Can Do’ philosophy present here far too much of the time. It’s generally the exceptions that prove the rule here with things like CAMM, T31, T26 and Martlet showing the way it could and should always have been.

  16. There are some on here who believed that the lack of an anti-ship missile was tactically understandable and prudent. Perhaps they might see this development as a waste of money.

    Seriously though this has to be great news (although the capability should have been a given) and the numbers of ships to get them is very welcome and surprising.
    Additionally whilst I don’t like his politics Ben Wallace is quite the best SoS for Defence that we have had for some time. I particularly like the way he gets stuck in with the various contractors and stake holders.

      • Some claimed the Astutes were the true ship killers… despite all their other urgent tasks. It seems our surface ships were to just run away from danger assuming they could actually detect it at any given time.

          • Good to look back but we have to adapt to the present and look further into the future. No time for under arming so few of our expensive ship assets. 1-2 more subs and a few more P-8s would be nice in the mix too.

          • Unfortunately not. It was, until the Ukrainian War, the only recent conflict where two Countries properly slugged it out, that were of comparable strengths.

            To many lessons have been learned due to the Falkands War that cannot be ignored, even if was 40 years ago. So it will always be used as a reference.

          • Don’t bother, he has found a pair of British Army socks in his laundry again and now got another angry piss on! Mrs Esteban is adamant she bought them from an army surplus store…….but….

          • It’s the last RN major action with comparable technologies, so I think it is still relevent. Politically & strategically it need never have been fought had we not planned to withdraw our token deterence/presence. That made Galteiri think we’d fold to an easy fait accompis. I think that lesson & many other from the sad affair are very relevent. Russia probably never would’ve invaded Ukraine, again, this year had NATO not run down its forces so far.

          • I think that was when the last serious naval battle happened so I am not surprised we revert to it to draw lessons.

          • All previous war is relevant due to the ability to learn from it! Oh dear the subject matter escapes you again!

          • Very true. But what would have been the difference, if our surface ships during the Falklands War had something like the early version of Tomahawk land attack cruise missile (TLAM)? The Argentinian position would have been very tenuous after a few missile strikes against their air defenses and ammunition dumps.

            A precision guided land attack weapon that can be fired from surface ships, has been missing from the RN’s inventory for decades. Where the RN’s focus was predominantly ASW. Then leaving land attack to our slowly decreasing numbers of SSNs. I believe meant they had to re-evaluate the order of battle. The US has used TLAM from its destroyers and cruisers for this decades. Even the French have a derivative of Storm Shadow called MDCN fitted to their ships for the last 10 years.

            Finally the RN are catching up. So rather than think that NSM as an interim anti-ship missile. It should be considered as the RN’s first surface (ship) launched precision guided land attack missile, that can also be used for the anti-ship role. A mini-TLAM if you will!

            I honestly believe that the NSM is more likely to be fired against a land target, long before being used against an enemy ship. But it now means the ship (T23 or T45) will have both options – finally!

          • Agreed. I’m sure the land strike capability is what made the decision to finally buy a ‘AShM’ happen.
            NSM on the frigate component of the littoral strike group is a significant increase in its credibility.

          • If we had Tomahawk at the time we’d have easily attacked the Argentine mainland airbases that caused us so much harm.

          • We lost 2 ships to ASM, Exocets destroyed Sheffield & Atlantic Conveyor. Had the Argentine navy succeded in breaking through closer to the task force we’d have seen Exocets used to take them out, hopefully before they could fire theirs. ASMs are a vital part of modern escort armanent. Only HMG lap-dog spinning suggested our atrocious gapping & delaying any interim capability was a good thing.
            If I recall correctly, at the time Conqueror sunk the Belgrano, the other two subs had lost their Argentine navy groups, but thankfully the loss of Belgrano made them abort their attack.

        • We have 6 (out of 7) Astutes? One will be defending the CASD SSBN. Maybe 2 are alongside for maintenance? So 3 potentially available to cover ‘the Seven Seas’.
          Not a very big anti-ship force for Global Britain.

          I am not impressed that our warships method of defence is to run away.

          • 5 of 7 Astute, as of current date. There is hope for future expansion of flotilla w/ SSN(R), courtesy of AUKUS.

          • Believe the number 8 has been stated as a preliminary estimate for planning purposes for SSN(R) class. If the design process is handled well, and the cost for a common modular design is spread across three navies, and skills of Barrow shipyard not permitted to atrophy between completion of Dreadnought class and SSN(R), there might be surprising synergies and cost savings available. 🤔

          • Esteban,

            The real and presumably viable roadmap for future submarine acquisition is currently slated for OOA March 2023. A mere four months away; a little patience please, then it should be revealed in print, and not simply my attempt to connect the dots.

          • Esteban is just upset, please ignore him, they have run out of heat at the Troll farm in St Petersburg after the gas explosion and his boss has not be able to steal any more money from the Russian army catering service.

          • He is just grumpy yet again as he found another pair of British Army issue socks in the laundry……..again!

          • Only 5 – even worse than I thought. I recall that we had 28 attack subs (SSK/SSN mix) in 1982.
            Good to hear that AUKUS will operate a tri-national S/B flotilla – but that would complicate tasking?

          • “I am not impressed that our warships method of defence is to run away.”

            It’s not, mate. 😆

        • Astutes are the true submarine/warship killers. That’s the sole reason they exist. The best tool for the job. It’s designed for that very job to hunt down and if necessary, destroy the enemy.

        • Yes, I believe that is indeed RN doctrine and has been for ages, though I do not think running away is the right word.

          This missile has Land Attack capability too, the real plus.

      • Ship launched anti ship missiles have never been used by a western navy if any navy. If your close enough to get radar lock your ship is also in range. Personally I think we should have them but they should be dual purpose for land attack which is probably more likely to be used.

        • Harpoons were used by the US Navy against the Iranian Navy Operation during Praying Mantis. And before anyone shouts up about how that was 30 years ago, it was 40 years ago that a submarine sunk a warship and none of us think that means submarines aren’t still relevant for ASuW

          • Thanks for pointing this out, people forget history too easily. The USN also used several SM-1 missiles in anti-surface mode against Iranian ships During Praying Mantis as well. Interestingly an Iranian ship also shot a Harpoon at US ships during the same scrap, thankfully it missed due to chaff.

          • Am I not right to say both ship launched harpoons missed and it was the aircraft launched that actually hit.

          • I think that you are right though the SM1’s fired in SSM mode did hit. Your original point was that they’d never been used though. In fairness, I’m not trying to pick a fight as I agree with the point you made that a captain has done something wrong if he’s come within range of another ships SSM’s. However, that’s the point of them in that they create a sterile zone around your ship that hostile vessels won’t come into. That’s exactly what Ukraine has achieved with it’s land based SSM’s; a sterile zone around its coast. Mind, two Russian captains were stupid enough to sail into it and lost their ships.

          • I’m all for them as well however I do understand the navy’s willingness to let the capability lap, rarely used, specialist weapon that’s very expensive.

            That being said things like satellite targeting are probably a game changer for ASM however I still think it’s a role that should be served by a combined land attack cruise missile but it’s certainly a must have even as a secondary weapon.

        • The same can be said of any weapon system until the first time it is used. When the need for that first time arrives I can guarantee nobody will question the wisdom of having said weapon…

        • Your first sentence Jim – perhaps the reason for that is that there have been precious few naval battles since ship-launched anti-ship missiles were fielded. Makes sense to me that surface combatants should be able to engage enemy naval vessels – bizarre if they can’t.

          I agree with the dual purpose point – and that they should be long range.

          • There has been more than we might image though, we had to gut the Iraq navy in GW1 but we found helicopter launched weapons much better. In Falklands it was submarines and helicopters. I think we should have them but I still think a ship launched ASM is a secondary weapon.

          • You don’t hear much about engaging the Iraq navy in GW1 – was that a big deal?
            This is very interesting to have this perspective as I am an ex-army man – we would never think a tank crew would regard destroying enemy tanks as a secondary role.

        • You’re forgetting the first time that Western Nations sat up and took notice of anti-ship missiles, when they were used to sink an Israeli ship. The SS-N-2 Styx was fired from two Egyptian Komars patrol boats at the INS Eilat (late HMS Zealous) destroyer in 1967.

          The first two missiles nearly cut the ship in half. The third hit the sea, whilst the fourth hit the wreckage. This was despite the ship having radar directed guns, that should have been capable of intercepting the high subsonic flying Styx. But the ship’s radar failed to detect the incoming missiles soon enough.

          If HMS Conquerer had not sunk the Belgrano. The pincer attack that the Argentines were planning may have been the first large scale use of anti-ship missiles between two navies. As both sides had the ship launched Exocet. Luckily after the Belgrano was sunk, the Argentine Navy turned tail and sailed back to port.

          • Western nations sat up and took notice of anti-ship missiles years before that…..24 years in fact…

            When they were being targeted with HS.293 off Anzio and elsewhere..

            Problem is they forgot…and no-one built anti-ship missiles for some time after the war…

          • HS 293 in Biscay.
            While technically not a missile since it did not had propulsion the amour piercing Fritz X guided bomb sunk Italian battleship Roma with 2 hits.

    • Agreed, believe BW’s competence seriously underrated in home market. US should be willing to trade for future draft choices plus cash on the barrel head. 🤔😉

    • It is possible to have a navy without heavy anti ship missiles. If you are using the on board helicopter to provide targeting data for the anti ship missile you can launch weapons from it.
      The anti ship missile gives an extra option but it’s not the only option.
      The NSM is still a subsonic missile that maybe can be countered.
      It is a welcome addition to the the navy.

      • The biggest problem with that is if a helo is close enough to carry out target evalution and provide targeting info it will be within the SAM envelope! would like to be in a hundred and fifty knot helo against mach3 sams? If the helo is there better it launch it’s own ASM and duck back below radar horizon. Of course a stealthy UAV might be an option to loiter just above horizon.

      • The opposing ship must first be able to detect it. NSM uses a passive imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. So it won’t give away its position unlike a radar guided missile. Which can be detected by the ship’s electronic surveillance equipment. Secondly the NSM is a low observable missile. It uses contour shaping to minimize its radar cross section.

        Thereby the ship’s radar will find it pretty hard to detect as it pops over the horizon and screams in at 5m or less above sea level. This means by the time the ship’s radar could detect the missile, it may be within the minimum air defence missile engagement envelope. Thereby needing to rely on CIWS, which will have similar problem of getting its radar to lock on.

        Secondly, if the ship deploys active and passive countermeasures. NSM will ignore RF jamming and chaff, as it uses an IIR sensor. If the ship launches decoy flares. The missiles should ignore these too, as the flares signature does not match the library image of the target. Unless the ship has a form of laser directed infrared countermeasures (LIRCM) which could be used to dazzle/blind the sensor, the missile will get through.

        As an example. The Qinetiq Banshee target drones are fitted with a radar augmentor. As its radar cross section is tiny. A lot of ships struggle to detect Banshees without the augmentor. The NSM has a similar RCS…..

      • You can use a camcopter to provide targetting data, but the heaviest weapon it can carry is a Martlet and probably not at the same time as radar. As we move towards increasing deployment of ISTAR UAVs, we can’t always expect the same platform that handles targetting to be able to carry/fire the right weapons.

    • With Harpoon, we didn’t have an effective kill chain to engage a hostile warship over the horizon. You would need an off-board asset like a drone or a helicopter to send targeting information over a datalink back to the warship to be able to fire at extended ranges. These new weapons have lots more options, and ISTAR is more important than ever. They would still be more effective under the wing of a F35B or a P8. The land attack capability of NSM really gives our escorts more options. I was one who questioned the need for ship mounted Anti ship missiles, and I stand by that. But technology marches on, and these new weapons are a positive move for the RN.

      • I would just add if I may littoral strike closes down the range & brings a multitude of targets as we have seen in Ukraine vessels can be struck in port.So in context of RM LRG/LSGs a great asset.
        As for ship to ship as you’ve said there’s more ISTAR & satellite targeting is now a thing so not so easy to hide. The missile is passive & hunts IR images using AI to target weakest points on whatever vessel it’s attacking. It is also able to be helicopter launched so potentially if RN wishes in the future you can then add the range of say Merlin & this possibility also allows multiple attacks from different directions (if in ship range). Not so clear but not inconceivable as you say underwing of F35B a possibility.
        Final point range is stated as above 185km exact range obvs classified but it t could be more than thought
        Sorry for butting in but thought you made a great point
        I think it’s a great choice

      • Yep, with you on that. Ship vs ship ASM slug fests with the Soviet navy I do not believe was RN doctrine and still isn’t for the technical issues you and GB have highlighted many times. The Land Attack side is a real bonus too.

        I still call for the ASM on a jet as priority.

      • Hi Robert, I have been of the opposing position, but I’ll caveat that with the anti-ship missile must be dual use!. In that I have always believed a warship must be able to stand on its own two feet (pardon the phrase!), when it needs to engage an enemy, wherever it finds itself. The reason for this is that it may be off the Horn of Africa, where there is no local air or sub support. So must fight with what it has to hand.

        Yes, we have Wildcat with Martlet and Sea Venom. But to fire these, the helicopter must be firstly armed with them, but also in the air. So, if the ship (T23 or T45) comes under an unexpected attack. Apart from the ship’s guns and CAMM for the T23, it hasn’t got an immediate reply.

        I think it was the incident with the USS Mason, an Aleigh Burke destroyer, that came under shore-based missile attack in 2016. Where the Houthis using Iranian copies of Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile (which are copies of Exocets) that swayed my opinion. The Mason used SM2, ESSMs and countermeasures, to defend itself against 9 anti-ship missiles launched at it over a week-long period. However, the Mason, did not have a precise means of striking back, especially against the targeting radar used by the Houthis, that were being moved around. This was left to the USS Nitze another Arleigh Burke. Who fired TLAM at three radar sites used by the Houthis.

        In the above instance our T23 or T45 could not immediately respond. Though with the CAMM upgrade, perhaps a T23 could? But CAMM only has a small warhead. How much damage could it do to a radar site. Where it might need more than one to take out.

        The Sea Venom is a great evolution from Sea Skua. But it is only helicopter launched. Though it can be cannister launched as well. The Kongsberg NSM fills the gap of heavy-ish anti-ship weapon, but crucially, it gives the ship a precision land attack capability. Which means in a similar incident to the Mason. A Royal Navy ship armed with NSM can make an immediate response to take out the threat.

        Finally, the Royal Navy have woken up, realizing that an Astute cannot be in two or three places at once. But also, that the carrier based F35 is not really ready, as it hasn’t got a stand-off weapon that we can use yet. But more importantly is that a ship can not only defend itself, but also has a more effective means of going on the offensive. The NSM will now give the Navy this option of turning our ships into fully rounded warships, armed with what is in effect a mini-TLAM that has a very good anti-ship capability.

        • Hi Davey. Can’t argue with any of that mate. That’s a good example of how useful having this kind of weapon system can be. 👍

          • Very easy to argue against it because it completely glosses over the need to locate, id, & fix the target.

            Mr B, says that in his scenario, the first AB’s were not able to destroy the enemy radars “because they kept moving around” but the second could destroy them because of its super duper precision missile.

            Then goes on to say that T45’s & T23’s would have the same problem as the first AB but everything would be immediately solved by fitting NSM’s.

            That’s BS.

            How did the AB’s determine where to fire their missiles? and does the NSM armed T45 & T23 enjoy the same capability?

            Remember that UK submarines firing TLAM’s in anger were provided targeting information by the Americans.

  17. I am yet again pleasantly surprised and shocked that HMG is making a series of Big, expensive and completely correct announcements re the RN.
    I don’t know how he is getting all this done and I don’t care as long as it all happens but Ben Wallace is shaping up to be the best Defence Secretary in decades.
    As for the announcement I’d like to know if “a set” of NSM’s is 8 ? On the surface it look a bit short on overall numbers but 11 is about right for what we actually need.
    Given that we have 6 T45’s and 11 T23’s (- Monmouth and Montrose), allow a 3rd of each class for refits and fit the active ones with NSM 11 is about right.

    Am I going to step out of the shower a’ la Bobby Ewing and discover this was all a dream.🙃

    Next thing someone will buy more Helicopters and a 4th Tranche of Typhoons.

  18. Good news. Additional capabilities are always welcome. The ones going onto the T31, is that an extra capability up from when they were originally announced?

    • Yes, T31 was announced with “just” a 57mm main gun, 2x40mm bofors, and an underdetermined amount of CAMM. It now seems they will inherit NSM mounts from T23s as they go out of service. Plus, the RN have openly said they are exploring mk41 for the T31. It isn’t known if that is still a priority now that they will receive NSM. All we need now is a hull mounted sonar.

  19. Nice to see we will have the ability to actually sink other ships again and not just ponce around looking pretty. Additionally my understanding is the Naval Strike Missile is supposed to be a pretty darned good piece of kit.

  20. This is very positive news for the RN, especially the land attack capability. But as with all anti ship engagements, how does the kill chain work when targeting a fast moving warship operating well over the horizon without off-board targeting? Maybe someone better qualified can explain? I haven’t looked up the full capabilities of the weapon.

    • This has always fascinated me with missiles such as Meteor and Brimstone tbh esp if the former were ever beyond our imaginations adapted to a surface based system like NASAMS exploits and now that Brimstone 2 is being supplied to Ukraine too with its ability to self select targets somehow. Have done a bit of research on the matter but not at all qualified to answer it but yes these long range surface to surface missiles really are asking that question even more so aren’t they.

    • Some of the Internet pages about the weapon suggest it has an in flight data link which I assume means it can be updated as to what particular box of sea the warship is operating.
      Wedgetail , crowsnest, F35, River Joint could potentially spot a ship from hundreds of miles by radar or elint?
      An Astute wanting to remain invisible could pass its sonar track via periscope to satellite to friendly assets?
      Ukraine may have been given some help finding Moskva by the constant number of NATO. surveillance assets.

      • Just shows the importance of ISTAR these days and secure networked capabilities. The recent live firing off Scotland recently involved sharing of data between assets to fire Harpoon. Impressive technology

      • If an Astute had the unit on sonar, it wouldn’t pass any info onto friendly assets, it would dispatch said ship with a Spearfish, that after all is their primary role.

        • Probably, though if the Astute was tracking a far juicier target ( or inserting a team of SBS on a coastlin) , it might prefer not to risk its own detection and let something else deal with a frigate?
          The sub documentary showed the crew picking up a Russian SSN approaching UK waters. It stated stealthy and let the Type 23 scare the Russians away.
          I assume an Astute can get a track on a surface target at a far greater range than a Spearfish torpedo can travel?

          • Our SSN’s are tasked with sailing into harms way and dealing with it, its their function. Any frigate might not be the primary target, but would also be dealt with as required.
            The last thing a SSN would do is potentially give away its position by transmitting to an external source. Trust me, they don’t, they deal with the situation, they are well used to playing the loner without support.
            WRT your last sentence, all depends on the target, a warship is generally far quieter than a merchant ship. A SM is generally quieter than a warship.
            Spearfish has a high speed/long range performance enhancement primarily to achieve a hit in a stern chase scenario when the target is already heading away from you opening the range.

        • Could we just stop with the astute thing and the maybe two that the UK could actually deploy. Their role is not to sink half-assed Russian surface ships if it is the UK has completely missed the point.

          • Glad to see you are still contributing to the debate, not.
            If you don’t like what’s being posted fella, go elsewhere, you and your comments won’t be missed, honest.

          • I understood that the Astutes primary role is hunting enemy submarines, though I’m sure enemy surface vessels are fair game too.

            I assume this is what Estoban was referring to, though from his posts he’s so deranged/drunk that in addition to being unable to articulate this properly he also can’t count…. 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • Correct. It is the best ASW asset we have. We only need look at their role in the Cold War vs Soviet SSN and SSBN, that will not have changed.

            The service has also had the TLAM mission too so with NSM having that too, good stuff. I’m unsure of the comparison of the two though regards range I assume TLAM has greater reach.

          • TLAM has at least twice the range of NSM. Which at near 500km depending on the flight profile isn’t bad. Giving the RN a lot of serious options.

          • Ok smarty pants let us know what the submarines role is.
            Their is no point posting saying someone is wrong without posting why you believe they are wrong

          • You bloviated for years about how the Royal Navy Daddy did not give you the technology to f*** around torpedoing Russian frigates. You are supposed to be in the Arctic or the North Atlantic or maybe making sure that the special arrangement deterrent could get to see. Even the Royal Navy has now determined that the b******* that has been posted on there about anti-ship weapons was a mistake. Just eat it.

          • I don’t recall anyone ever saying that the RN shouldn’t have anti-ship weapons. Many, myself included, stated that with limited resources we’d prioritise air launched anti-ship missiles if we couldn’t have both in the short term.

            I don’t understand the anger. Why get all frothy over it when it seems the RN isn’t your country’s navy? Apologies if that was the wrong assumption. I’d like to know what you think your country does better in this regard.

          • “I don’t recall anyone ever saying that the RN shouldn’t have anti-ship weapons. Many, myself included, stated that with limited resources we’d prioritise air-launched anti-ship missiles if we couldn’t have both in the short term.”

            Correct, I was one of them, Marte as you may recall.

            https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/marte-er/

          • ?? Perhaps your sentence should read…’ or perhaps making sure that the Russian (nuclear?) deterrent does not get to sea’? Sorry, found it somewhat difficult to reconstruct your sentence, may have misinterpreted your intent. BTW, are you perchance, dyslexic? Know several intelligent people who suffer from this condition, and find it difficult to communicate in writing effectively.

          • Why does this story bother you so much? And really, who do you think really gives a shit about your stupid, incorrect opinions? You sound like a tired, angry Mexican, all piss and vinegar, and signifying nothing.

    • Well read twice that the missiles will start to be supplied in 12 mths while here it’s reported they will be operational starting in 12 mths which is even more encouraging if correct so maybe you mean when will they all be supplied and fitted?

    • Looking at the USN’s reports on the Mk54 torpedo, I wouldn’t be too enthused (especially as we’re using it on our P-8As). The wing kit is apparently pretty good, but the torpedo has been evaluated as not operationally effective against realistic threats in unclassified US DOD reports, and even the Mod I which is not quite in service isn’t supposed to fix all the problems. We’d be better getting Stingray integrated with P-8A ASAP, I’m sure the Norwegians would be interested.
      Example report for Fy2016. The following reports centre on the testing for the Mod I, their evaluation of the Mk54 BUG (the version in current use and the one evaluated in this report) remains unchanged.
      https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2016/navy/2016mk54.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105304-587

      • That’s certainly not an encouraging report. Details of the tests aren’t covered but it sounds like it’s only effective if the submarine is not taking any evasive tactics. Would these be actions it would take as standard all the time in wartime, or only those when it believes there’s a threat. If the former then it’s not going to be any use.

        Stingray integration would be preferable for the P8, though we know how expensive and how long weapons integration can take…

        Do you know if there has been any thoughts on developing a similar wing-kit for the Stingray?

        • From what I read, they got worried about littorals and diesel electric subs, which is fair enough. Except that HSE said No to firing torpedoes at a manned sub (apparently set-to-hit shots are required along with set-to-miss), potentially because DE subs are smaller than SSNs(?). So they made a steel model of a DE sub, which is static (unrealistic), and probably represents a MUCH bigger sonar target unless they’ve covered it in sound deadening panels. I believe they also said that the torpedo wasn’t very good at following the terrain of the seabed in shallow water, which I guess means it plowed into the seabed a few times!
          Even in peacetime, Russian subs and NATO ASW vessels play cat and mouse- as shown by the Channel 5 show when that Russian sub clipped the T23’s towed sonar. One of the French FREMM ASW vessels (Aquitaine, I think) manged to keep a Russian sub tagged for over a day a year or so ago, despite the sub trying everything in the book to escape- the French crew rightly got some kind of unit commendation for it. If submarines will try and go evasive in peacetime, when not being actively attacked, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for a Mk54 hitting one if all it’s good for is immobile acoustic mirrors…
          I’d agree, definitely get the Stingray integrated, Norway is also a user of both the weapon and the P-8A- so could certainly look into a joint bill for the work.
          As far as the wing kit goes, I don’t know of any project to do the same for Stingray. It might be helpful, but with some limitations: A glide munition is going to get to a location slower than the P-8A flying there and dropping the munition onto the target- and time is of the essence with ASW because the contacts can often disappear quickly. So, unless the P-8A isn’t allowed into the threat area where the target is or can’t change its route, not sure why we’d want to do that. If it was powered, like Spear3, then that would remove the problem, and create a loitering torpedo, circling over a search area and ready to attack a target at speed. But The motor and fuel would presumably add quite a bit to the size of the weapon.

  24. Is it a missle to a canister or will we be getting any extra missles? I’d imagine to test the systems and get the SOP together they will have to fire a couple so will there be missles to replace them?

  25. Best news so far today, I’d hoped this would be the one that was finally chosen. I’ve advocated on here many times in the past as it is extremely flexible and can be delivered by Air Land or Sea 😊

    The aircraft version of the NSM is part of the advanced armament of F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen and NH90 multipurpose fighters. In 2008 Poland concluded a contract for the supply of ground-based NSM missiles, which it plans to use for the protection of the Baltic Sea coast.

    Under this agreement, in 2012 the Polish Navy will receive a coastal defence missile division consisting of two batteries equipped with mobile NSM missile launchers. The location of the division has been chosen as the location of the Semirovica Research and Development Division.

     The cost of the contract amounted to 115 million dollars.

  26. This is good news!

    So when the announcement says ‘outfitted on a total of eleven Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers’, is that 11 ship sets total or 17 (11 +6)? I assume it’s 11 ship sets?

    I’m particularly glad to see the Type 45s are included; this with the addition of the 24 sea ceptors, will finally see these awesome ships get some teeth!

    I’m also hoping the NSMs get cross-decked to the Type 31s as the Type 23s phase out of service. This too will greatly enhance the Type 31s lethality.

    Well done to all and a nice early Christmas present for the Royal Navy!

  27. Hopefully we will get more info soon, but I speculate that the UK is being given access to Norway’s pool of Naval Strike Missiles. We will pay a leasing fee, and the full cost of any missiles expended, e.g. for training. The amount of equipment actually being purchased out-right by the UK might be quite small – electronics (command/fire control), cabling, launcher mounts, training, maintenance tools and materials.  That would explain how just £200m will be enough to equip up to 11 T23/45 escorts with the system for 6 (?) years. There might also be some bartering going on – with some UK equipment or services going the other way – the kind of thing that “buy American” solutions rarely include.

  30. Good news that we are getting something, but NSM has a relatively small Warhead compared to Harpoon, so upgraded Harpoon was a better option, although LRASM was the best…….but, if we had gone for that, many would question why bother with FCASW ?

    • Here in Oz, Harpoon Blk II operated by both the RAN and RAAF is being replaced.

      The RAN will replace Harpoon with box launched NSM on Destroyers and Frigates, on the other hand, the RAAF will replace Harpoon with LRASM.

      Defence is also investigating fitting ‘boosters’ to LRASM for potential Mk 41 VLS launch.

      • My understanding is that the USN are planning to use the LRASM replacement as a surface and air-launched weapon, so Australia will likely need to foot the bill for VLS integration alone. Unless all this Ukraine and Taiwan stuff makes the USN reconsider.

      • Yep, although development is happening on a version that goes VLS. I don’t understand the delay though as LM test fired from mk41 back in 2013.

        • I think the USN wasn’t interested because they had Harpoon and didn’t see ASuW as particualrly high priority compared to other things. My understanding is that they’re planning to use the LRASM replacement as a surface and air-launched weapon, so Australia will likely need to foot the bill for VLS integration alone. Unless all this Ukraine and Taiwan stuff makes the USN reconsider.

    • Interestingly, the Proposed BlockIII Harpoon had a smaller warhead- similar in size to the NSM, and I think the BlockII-ER also uses the smaller warhead. Potentially 125-150 kg does the job?
      LRASM is significantly more expensive per unit and is only currently cleared for air launch. Neither the USN or Australians have any public plans to go surface launched. They’re basically doing what we’re doing: Saving the real cross-platform integration for their next weapon (FC/ASW for us, possibly some develpoment of the LRASM for them). So, given that they’ve actually reduced funding for their next AShM the last few years in favour of upgraded blocks of Harpoon, NSM, and LRASM for air launch, we may find that FC/ASW gives us the capability quicker.

  31. I once had girlfriend just like the RN and it’s relationship with Strike missiles…it’s on its…. off again…… it’s on again. All the while knowing it was never going to be a long term thing.

  32. Absolute tremendous decision this but the best bit about this is its also compatible with F35, Which can carry internally (game changing) and our P8s.

      • Think it’s the JSM that is for aircraft, based on the NSM, not sure if it is ready yet but was going to be carried internally on the f-35A and C…… B will have to carry it on pylons but am not sure if the software has been sorted for it yet or if that is another block 4 upgrade. Would be great to have JSM for P8, Typhoon and F-35B.
        Either way this is a great announcement !

  34. Very sensible.
    The last budget didn’t hint at vast defence uplift but some simple gaps could be filled from gear already on the shelf or possibly readily adapted
    ASTER 30 with ABM capability could be mounted on a truck with an OTS radar same as France and Italy ( or buy the Italian radar. , that would give common missile stocks with the RN.
    Caam -ER would be a no brainer.
    Could the Caam-ER booster fire a Meteor missile an incredibly long distance?
    Could complex weapons include an anti radiation seeker for Meteor to give RAF Typhoons stand off capability.
    3 decades of neglect is hopefully over.

    • The last budget didn’t hint at an uplift for sure but despite the blackhole the previous 16bil spend will be used for something it seems.

      • I think it is exactly this. Posters forget there was an increase.

        I believe a lot of army goodies have yet to be announced too.

          • You can play what ever inflation card you like, Barry. Fact remains the budget was boosted via the longer term agreement rather than the 1 year that Sunak wanted, which would have been dreadful.
            lnflation can hit when your party is in power too, unless by 2024, as many are predicting, it will have settled, juuust as Labour get in and no doubt take the credit. It will be interesting to see what they do with these spending commitments, even if they are political traps set just as Labour did.

            Spin it whatever way you wish.

            Army wise, 6 billion of the extra money is going to Land I’d read, and the carrots have been RN of late. So, there will be announcements in that area. The increased Boxer order and various SHORAD programmes account for much of it.

          • Daniele, my name is David.

            I’m not spinning anything.

            Spin is telling the UK we are building 40 new hospitals. We are not.
            Spin is saying that 30? 40? 50k? New nurses will be recruited when nurses already in place are counted.
            Spin is telling the UK we are recruiting 20k extra police… the Cons cut 21k
            Spin is saying railway strike action is a matter for the TOCs and Unions, when many of the TOCs are DOR, and the others now operate not as franchises but to the remit given to them DfT.

            This Govt is all about spin and it’s about time they were called out by any person who gives even just a hoot for the defence of the UK rather than just deflecting, Daniele.

          • It’s OK Mandy, you don’t need to apologise for being a Conservative.

            Daniele, take it easy; we agree on one thing at least, we need a strong, well funded, military.

            We both see it and both will work/vote for it.

            David

          • When the budget increase (please remember the word increase) was announced no one knew that inflation to this extent would hit due to various external factors. No government has put an inflation linked military budget in place, maybes suggest it for Labour as they love to use a broken calculator and will have no end of fun asking Abbott to look at the numbers again and again.

            The US has the exact same issues, what excuse do they have as they cant blame the Tories?

    • Hi Dave, to answer some of your questions.

      The next update to Meteor, the JNAAM project, where the Japanese Mitsubishi AAM-4B AESA radar is being fitted to Meteor. Will give the missile a much broader spectrum passive RF homing capability. However, it will need the addition of a GPS receiver to make it equivalent to a HARM. As it uses the GPS reference to work out where a radar was last transmitting from. To home in on to that location. To give it an even broader range of frequencies to operate over will need some developing, but is doable.

      I have mentioned about using Meteor as a surface to air missile before. But instead of using the CAMM-ER which is a one-piece design, instead use the Aster 30 rocket booster. The Aster dart and Meteor are very close dimensionally. The addition of the Aster 30 booster in particular would allow Meteor to reach much greater altitudes, in between SM2 and SM6 at least 80,000ft but probably closer to 100,00ft.

      Ramjet powered missiles have shown that they can operate up to 150,00ft, but can then have a ballistic trajectory to reach nearly 200,00ft. To reach higher altitudes Meteor will need to grow, so it can hold more fuel. But by that stage, it becomes a new missile. The addition of mid-body thrust vectoring would also help tremendously when engaging targets at much higher altitudes.

      Another option for Meteor when it’s used from an aircraft. Is to add an additional external 1st stage booster. Currently Meteor uses an internal rocket booster installed inside the ramjet exhaust. This is used to accelerate the missile past Mach 1 to allow the ramjet to work. But it has a very short burn time that gets it up to near Mach 3.5 in seconds. The ramjet can accelerate it further to speeds above Mach 4. By fitting an external rocket booster and then using the internal one as a second stage. The missile is accelerated past Mach 4 in seconds, but crucially has a longer burn duration. Thereby allowing the missile to only use the ramjet for pulsing for sustained speed rather accelerating. Which conserves fuel and extends the range. We would be looking at 200km+ missile. Which could then be used for use against strategic targets such as AEW/ISTAR aircraft.

      The SAMP/T system is a truck mounted mobile PAAMS (sort of) that was designed off the back of the Horizon ship program. It is being upgraded with Aster 30 Block-1NT missiles to give it a better anti-ballistic capability. The Arabel radar it uses could be a lot better, replaced with a land derivative of the Thales NS-200 AESA radar. Which would not only give it a multi-beam search capability but a look up range of more than 200km.

  35. Can we have this in writing please… Lol 😁. Bloody good news and about bloody time and more than the “5 sets” too. I need to sit down. Maybe the air launched version is next? Cannister or vls version or both?

    • Morning Klonkie, maybe NZ might be next for the two Anzac.’ As John N says above 🇦🇺 is muscling up in the missile department. Lol 😁

  37. Unexpected but good news 👍 .Just on another matter hear Ukraine are getting some Helicopters from UK and 10,000 Artillery rounds but was puzzled about AA guns ,can’t really think of any in UK service from my day.Can any of you Guys help me out on this one ?

  38. Does this also mean we are getting the JSM, also why don’t we use tomahawk for this purpose, which it is more than capable of.. does anyone know the cost of these missiles please?

    • NSM and JSM are apparently quite a lot less common than you’d expect, although I agree it makes sense to get them.
      Tomahawk Block Va, which is the maritime attack version, is ~$2M, against NSM’s $2.1M, so not a lot in it (I’m using Wikipedia numbers). Obviously the T’hawk has far longer range, but isn’t stealthy, so potentially not as survivable. Also, I don’t know if T’hawk is vertical launch only or not. If it needs VLS, then it won’t be deployable on either T45 or T23.
      Interestingly, JSM apparently fits into Mk41, which opens up possibilities for a common missile across surface and air launched platforms. But a) that would be too easy, b) that probably gets a bit too close to FC/ASW and c) would need formal Mk41 integration, which will cost a lot of money. I think we can be happy that we’re getting an AShM before 2030 at all!

      • Kongsberg/Raytheon did VLS trials on NSM a couple of years ago. There weren’t any negative reports, So I take it they worked ok. Which does open up the possibility for a Mk41 T26/T31 fit.

  39. Good! As no matter what chuff we throw about, the military is there to kill people and destroy assets and platforms! And to do that the end of the “kill chain” is a kinetic object which blows shit up! Good call, pleasantly surprised!

  40. Hard to find any credibility for the in service date. Surely this should be years overdue, and billions over budget? Oh hang on, we’re not making it.
    Sounds a great buy but the bunting stays in the garage for now.

  41. Very good news…I assume that as the T26 will have its mk41 silos, these will end up on the T31 as the T23s are retired.

  42. Well the UK again is about a decade late. They seem to be enamored with taking capability gaps like that. About time but oddly enough everyone on this damn board was all singing the company lion about how they did not need any sort of anti-ship weapons. Either air-launched or surface launched.. seems like the grown-ups in the room decided differently

    • No that’s not true at all, discussions was had on what was most importing in ASuW capability, I don’t remember anyone ever saying air launched capacity was anything other than needed…as for strike again I don’t remember anyone ever saying the RN should not have that.

      • There is a coherent argument that AShM isn’t any use against a peer enemy. When the detection is radar horizon limited.

        If it is a true peer it would be able to fire something similar the other way.

        What I suspect made the difference was the recent exercise with Harpoon where satellite data and P8 data made the missile usable over the Horizon. That completely changed the usability calculus.

        The other thing that would make a difference is having a drone with high eyes doing passive radar and EM detection.

        Has Wildcat got us data link on the QT? That could be another reason.

        • Or a cheap drone with off the shelf ELINT, IIR or even high res TV pack.!? It wouldn’t need to fly at huge altitudes to push the detection horizon out well beyond the 20 miles or so for a ship mounted radar and the navy has been looking at drones quite intensly just recently.

          Even at 2000′ the horizon is hugely expanded. I used to fly a small home build and was flying to just to the West of Basingstoke on one of the clearest days I have ever seen when I realised that I could see the towers of London / Canary Wharf. About 50 miles according to doogal.co.uk.

          Point is you wouldn’t need a huge drone to look well over the horizon with the right light weight kit. Perhaps a couple of T650’s which have been talked about on here.

          Just my speculation.

          Cheers CR

          Oh, nearly forgot – more great news for the RN. 🙂

    • Have you not eaten that chip yet, it must have burned a hole in your shoulder with all the sizzling…can we not just be nice?

  44. What is good to see is that the Type 45 will finally get to the where it always needed to be.

    48 Aster 30, 24 CAMM and 8 strike missiles, with a merlin to cover its ASW weakness, you have a very potent vessel.

    if the strike missiles also make there way onto the T31s they become pretty potent as well…one of these sitting in a region is a far greater expression of British will than a ship without a strike option.

    Now we just need to get fixed wing air launched Anti ship missiles sorted out on the F35 ( spear 3 ).

    • If I can be greedy fof a moment, I wouldn’t mind seeing them upping to 32-48 CAMM on the T45s if possible and even 2×6 NSM mounts or the ability to have 4×4 NSM mounts if when required? The T83s are still a very long way off and no new news on the FC/ASW yet. Okay, I’m finished. Lol 😁.

      • T45s are getting NSM as far as I understand it. 11 vessels will be equipped, which suggests 6 x T45 and 5 x T31 in the long term, with a mix of T45 and T23 before then.

      • That is quite greedy.

        But let’s face it that make T45 a real proper heavy duty destroyer that can destroy air/land/sea targets.

        Backed up by the best AAW radar system out there.

      • Personally I think we should lever the hell out of CAMM, the whole point of it being cold launched and radar agnostic is it’s cheap, yet very effective. As it’s also got the ASuW option putting large numbers on all escorts seems sensible. 48 CAMM and 48 Aster 30 would be an idea fit. Getting a good number of strike missiles would make our escorts even more of the deterrent ( 16 strike missiles is a lot of threat).

        • Totally agree with you on a 48/48 fit out. I’m no naval engineer but there does seem to be a lot of available space and options for this and1-2 MK41s, which as part of the original design was pretty forward thinking (pardon the bad pun) for then. Even the NSMs will be more compact and lighter mounts than the Harpoons. Post PIP these T45s will still have 10-15 years of service life left in them so why not make them as effective as they are truly capable of and not just 1/2 or 2/3 more of what they can be? I guess it’s all big money and priorities. And I’m not sure if we’ve got any influence on the matter but we can dream, hope and discuss here on UKDJ! 😁

    • Agreed, as ever MR Sensible post. I’m reading far too many recriminations against those, including me, who understood the rational for not prioritising an ASM on an escort. The reasons went way over too many posters heads.
      This news is great, LA capability too.

  45. being a cynic maybe this is what you get with a really weak prime minister who is beholden to a few senior figures…BW ..we are buyIng this…PM really…Do we have to…BW yes…or I’m off to resignation land….PM ok…BW we’re having 11…..PM sad face.

    • I don’t think it went that way at all. The Chancellor decreased the budget for next year, so getting programmes started now will cause an issue for the post-election government in 2024.

      • Ah so it’s an orgy of buy now pay during the next labour government. I’m pretty sure labour did that to the tories last time so fairs fair.

        • We do have a pretty major European war going on?

          So buying limited numbers of useful weapons doesn’t seem crazy to me.

          I’m pretty sure that Harpoon will go to the Ukranians and this is more of a backfill.

          I suspect the previous plan was a Harpoon upgrade as it was quick and cheap.

          • Maybe.

            I doubt spending £200m needed the PM’s sign off.

            For once we do have a guy in Treasury who gets defence. His dad was an admiral….

          • Good spot! I didn’t know Hunt’s father had been an Admiral and CINCFLEET. Hopefully he’ll tweak his son’s ear if he ever tries to reduce defence spending.

          • That really would shake Jeremy up given that his father died in 2013. Let’s hope he pays him a visit 😂

          • I did not know that. To be honest Jeremy Hunt is one of the politicians I really rate. If I go not agree with his policies, I do tend to think he’s doing them for the right reasons. I also think he was a competent minister of state for health who actually sorted a couple of key structural issues in health such as acute hospital care at weekends… senior Drs all fucked off at weekends and left it to junior staff..it was a constant issue for those of us looking at safer hospitals and he took the Medical profession on over that so I do give him respect.

  47. Take all the old Harpoon missiles ordinance and ground mount them on armoured vehicles give them to the Ukraine to use up against the Russians.. a bran new rocket artillery system for the Army.

  48. Good news.

    Tho tbh I would rather have had improved ASW across the fleet as a higher priority. The T45s haven’t even got a supported sonar I believe – appalling. And Merlin numbers need boosting as do Wildcat ( which could be fitted in some cases with FLASH). As for T31 that desperately needs a credible ASW fit.

    • True the ASW needs and capability need to be greatly improved, Merlin fleet expanded to give another couple squadrons and say pass over the Army Wildcats to the RN and fit them with radar. The Army can catch up with something more suitable for their role. The Fleet needs to be able to take out all possible targets both at sea and land and this new fit delivers on both counts. And its more than capable of taking out a warship as once that is blind it is no longer a threat to you, you dont always have to sink it to eliminate it. AAC a course of much upset in the RN Est anyway.

      • Agree. Especially regarding army Wildcats. I’d even take a few troop carrying Merlins and convert to ASW. A tough choice but a much better use of the Merlin airframe imho.

        • Which troop carrying Merlin’s would those be?

          All the RAF ones went to RN there are some stripped frames in storage. But they would effectively be new build as everything useful has long since been removed for STOROB.

          • The other HM1’s which I think we discussed before.

            I would be too surprised if a project came to pass to resurrect half a dozen.

            It fills a gap but without the costs of a new type.

          • All the RAF Merlins were converted to the Jungly version for CHF. There are 6 to 8 Merlin HM1s mothballed and robbed blind for spares that are in storage. These are the ones that could be rebuilt to HM2s.

          • I was thinking of those in CHF. But it seems from here that some stripped down frames are available ( as you and others have mentioned) so they sound like a possible starter for rebuild etc. Certainly I hope we can all agree that ASW must be a key upgrade priority for the fleet. Just pray MOD realises this.

            Russian surface fleet is a busted flush tbh and the most likely major threat faced by western fleets are sub-surface ( subs, mines, seabased infrastructure security) etc.

        • What would the CHF use instead? I get the rationale though with the critical shortage of ASW Merlin after they cut the force and got rid of the ASCS Sea Kings too leaving Merlin to do both.

          The planned drones I believe will share the load regards find/fix.

  49. Good news
    The RAN has already ordered the NSM and if the Ukraine has taught us anything – its common ammunition avaliability.

    On 5 April 2022, the Federal Government announced the accelerated acquisition of the NSM to replace the Harpoon Anti-Ship Missile on the Royal Australian Navy’s ANZAC Class Frigates and HOBART Class Destroyers.

  50. At least the RN will have something soon.

    I hope this for 8sets of cannister NSM per ship and not 4 or 6.

    All the T31 should also have these fitted when they come into service.
    Plus we need air launched JSM for the P-8 Posiedions and F-35B Lightnings (externally as it’s too long for the weapons bay)

  51. First class choice at last to get some bang in the Fleet. Land attack option a winner too. I would think the Norwegians are looking to add this to their P8’s which means the RAF should shack out some dosh and get them and already inline for the F35 so they too can get a ship killer Land attack hitter at last making it a real boost to our Carriers. Lets hope so at least. Having them makes those nasty folks think twice of course too. Deterrence.

    • I may be wrong, but I think the Norwegians are integrating JSM onto their P-8s, which is the same model that is set for integration onto the F-35. Unfortunately, they’re apparently not as common to the NSM as one would expect, but simply being from the same manufacturer should give some savings/simplification if we selected both.

      • I read that the NSM was adapted / resized to fit 2 in the F35A/C internal bay but due to the reduced diameter they are now working on an encapsulated version known as NSM-SL. This will fit in a standard 21″ Torpedo tube and dueto tesy in 2025 the are developing this with Babcock International and Namo.

  53. This is great news and will give us current commonality with a number of NATO members. So when the Anglo-French FC/ASW comes on-line at the end of the decade (is it?) and is deployed onto T45/T26 can we re-cycle some of the NSMs onto the T31s …. I wonder?

  54. Brilliant news!
    From what I’ve read we have given lots of our Harpoons to Ukraine in secret, and these were most likely the missiles used by Ukraine to sink the Moskva.
    But please tell me that these missiles will be built in the UK at least! It is not just the missiles that are needed, it is the ability to make them too in war, and on top of that to export things to subsidise our own defence.
    It is infuriating that we are simply buying off the shelf. Why couldn’t we have developed Sea Eagle or built another heavy anti ship missile ( I know we are building one with the French at the moment).
    Also why buy this over the new tomahawk with anti ship capabilities.
    I would love a deal allowing us to build new Tomahawks and buy a few thousand of them to bring the cost down. We might need them soon enough and we have hardly any.
    I’m sure Ukraine would kill to have some too.
    Maybe if our defence budget goes to 3% but I doubt that will happen now Truss was forced out of office.

      • Everything that submerges or floats on the water? You have to admit, w/ a couple thousand Tomahawk Block 5s, when the RN comes calling, Mad Vlad and the Orcs had better step off smartly! 🤔😁😉

  56. Off-Topic, but, can somebody explain to me how you can build eight frigates in such a relatively short space of time?

    Thank you in advance.

    Naval Group delivers final French FREMM frigate21 NOVEMBER 2022

    “Naval Group handed over Lorraine – the eighth Aquitaine-class FREMM (frégate européenne multi-mission) frigate for the French Navy – to France’s defence procurement agency Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) during a ceremony at the French naval base in Toulon on 16 November.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/naval-weapons/latest/naval-group-delivers-final-french-fremm-frigate

    • The French take decisions quicker – time is money. The industry technocrats, the government politicians and the civil servants are all members of the Grands Ecole elite – one big happy family. It’s as if the BAE management went to Eton and Oxford and joined the Bullingdon Club.

  57. Wow, I’m late to this news ( not been on here much lately due to life….)
    but…..BOOOM.

    Meltdown on here and Christmas early for some.

    I still prefer an ASM on our jets.

    • Due to the usual MOD delays (ie nearly 6 years late) this is actually “The Year of the Navy”.
      But lets see what Toys Santa brings next year for the RAF. Maybe somone will now figure out it is cheaper to leverage this purchase and buy the NSMs twin JSM for Typhoons, P8A and F35B.

      Patience Nice Uncle Ben will get round to you 😀

  60. Wallace really is an astoundingly good Def Sec. Seems to be fitted to more ships than Harpoon currently is too, which is great news. Finally some teeth for our sailors.

  61. How many missiles does this equate too. 11 sets of 8+ training rounds integration costs and technical support/ warranty/ upgrades/ repairs. So 88 active missiles? If 88 thats not bad. Would like more but i guess as NSM is so adaptable the RAF could get air launched version for Poseidon and F35Bs/ Eurofighter. I think F35B integration is key as this would provide the RN with great stand off ship killing capability. Most enemy ships wont be able to detect an F35B from 100 miles away.

  62. Since there will probably not be a better opportunity–best wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving Day 🦃, especially to all serving US personnel in the UK, some of whom who may visit this site, and indeed all resident expats. Hope you are able to connect in some manner w/ families back in the States. Often the mission, or, in some cases, ordinary commerce, preclude all from gathering in person, as the vast majority may wish. Take care, stay safe.

  63. Why is it that our Merlins can’t carry ASMs? When a RN escort embarks Merlins there is no ASM capability unless Harpoons are fitted, until NSMs arrive.
    Other nations fit ASMs to their Merlins I believe.

  64. I’m just asking a question, from a ‘simpletons’ perspective. Why does the Navy and Airforce require differing types of missiles? Is there not a ‘one missile kills all’ model out there? Is that what these ‘hypersonic’ missiles will do… make all other types of missiles obsolete?

  65. Without anything of substance to add I have to say this is probably the best and most informative thread I have ever read on this site. Just excellent 👌

  66. About a decade lat And we are all heard on this esteemed board. Why the UK did not need an anti-ship missile ever. And how three ships are being fitted with them. My God…. It is really hard to take this seriously. And anytime I hear world-class or world beating or state of the art and we’re punching above our weight I’m going to vomit. You’re not even close too well whatever figured out yourself. It’s embarrassing.

    • Ah good, two hands on the sink and heave up all those refried beans . You wouldn’t punch your way out of a wet paper bag you dumb, illiterate ,pointless troll.

    • I can understand where the RN is coming from. History suggests that ship launched AShM are as rare as hen’s teeth and that air launched AShM are the way to go. Secondly we ( until recently) have thought it unlikely we would be going toe to toe with Russian or Chinese frigates. In the Gulf the priority continues to be Iranian FAC – for which Type 31 armament plus Wildcat with its new missiles is ideal.
      Seems to me that what has tipped the balance in favour of purchasing NSM is two things: firstly the LRG concept needs to be able to control the littoral without carrier aircraft so it needs a land strike capability, the ability to discriminate surface targets in a cluttered environment and the ability to fend off an attack from the ocean. The second thing is that confronting Chinese and Russian vessels has recently become likely rather than unlikely – T45 and T23 GPs have nothing between Sea Venom and a sub if one is positioned; the ASW frigates with their Merlin have nothing at all.

    • Oh dear your frothing down your best vest again! Calm yourself down, I’m sure the baby is yours and not 2 Para Machine guns…..

  67. I am warmly expecting to get shot down by one and all but just want to float an idea )freedom of speech and all).
    Ben Wallace has really gone to town on the Navy and given that we as an island cannot survive without freedom of navigation I get his prioritise.
    But given the fact that Poland is pretty well on track to re equip, expand and become the dominant land warfare power in Europe.
    Why not scrap CH3 and join in with licence Building the South Korean designed MBT, SPG (Krab has the AS90 turret) and IFV, that way we get commonality and probably value for money ?

    Sand bagging my eardrums 😉

    • Korean MBT would cost a lot more than CH3 and would probably be less effective. Krab might happen. UK doesn’t want an IFV, says they are obsolete.

      BTW zero to do with this article

  68. Very interesting! To be used in tracking warships perhaps?

    “The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) for Project Oberon, a programme that seeks high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites.

    According to the PQQ released by the MoD on 24 November, the contract will involve a cluster of three satellites equipped with an active SAR payload and, at a lower priority, passive radio frequency (RF) functionality, which the supplier will be required to operate.

    The main contract is expected to demand a “full end-to-end solution including inter alia; design, development, manufacture, assembly, integration, test, launch, commissioning, operations, and eventual disposal”, the PQQ stated.
    Up to GBP70 million (USD84.7 million) has been earmarked for the 36-month contract.

    A further contract option is expected as part of the project – this will require a supplier to deliver mission operations, training, and support (per year) for a further six years, as well as mission integration and implementation into the ground architecture of the multi-satellite intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) ‘ISTARI’ programme, the MoD detailed.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air-platforms/latest/uk-mod-issues-pqq-for-isr-space-project

  69. The F35b air launched Joint strike missile becoming operational in 2025 with Australia is something to watch. Potentially UK, USA, Japan will order this missile for their F35 fleets. The potential of this combination being terminally effective at bottling up the PLAN in their main fleet bases and controlling the Western Pacific is something the AUKUS allies should invest in. An RAF order for hundreds of joint strike missiles to equip F35Bs and Poseidon MPAs will be a very impressive capability.
    For the Japanese especially their stealth F35s could launch JSMs from well outside detection and interception ranges. All mainland Chinese and Russian pacific coastline naval bases and shoreline airfields would be within range from F35s operating out of Japan.

  70. Should have bought this a while ago… but sense has prevailed
    Is there an air launched variant the f35 can utilise?
    Now next on the list is ditching the Ajax for cv90

  71. Still, what about attritional losses? We need a third carrier and double the number of escorts. Start by axing the health and benefit bill and lower taxes to empower the populace

  72. I’ve long though of the benefits that could be gained from an indigenous cub k like system mostRN ships have space set aside for iso containers its deployment can be endless maybe a container holding say4-6 cruise missiles in ships in a carrier strike group would vastly increase its power. at the moment a uk group has a few tomahawks lobbed from an Ssn as well as the use of the F35 but then not much more

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here