HMS Somerset, armed with new Naval Strike Missiles, has arrived at Faslane in Scotland.

As the designated Towed Array Patrol Ship (TAPS) vessel, HMS Somerset will be tasked with conducting vital anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, safeguarding the waters surrounding Faslane, home to the UKā€™s nuclear deterrent.

In addition to her TAPS duties, HMS Somerset is also showcasing the Royal Navyā€™s latest anti-ship and land-attack capability, having been the first British warship to receive the Naval Strike Missile (NSM)ā€”the replacement for the ageing Harpoon missile system.

While en route to Faslane, HMS Somerset conducted Replenishment At Sea (RAS) activities with RFA Tidesurge, demonstrating her new missile system in tandem with ongoing fleet support operations.

The NSM, developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, brings cutting-edge technology to the Royal Navy, enhancing its precision strike capabilities against enemy ships and land targets.

According to Kongsberg, the Naval Strike Missile is a long-range precision weapon, capable of engaging targets over 100 nautical miles away while evading enemy radar and defense systems with advanced sea-skimming and evasive manoeuvres. The missile carries a 500-pound warhead, equipped with a programmable fuse for increased targeting accuracy.

The Royal Navy plans to outfit eleven Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers with the NSM in collaboration with the Norwegian government.

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

93 COMMENTS

  1. I notice they are only angled for one way firing. Weren’t harpoon setup in a 2 and 2 configuration so could be fired from port or starboard?

      • They’re 410kg each, Harpoon was 691kg, so couldn’t we have had 2×6 instead of 2×4 especially as the warhead is 120kg vs the Harpoon 221kg?

        • Not sure there’s the room for two six packs on the T23s but possibly on the T45s. The x four mount seems to be the fashion. Like to see the T26s get 2×4 like the RAN and RCN to free up the mk41s for other things and complement the FCASW when it comes.

          • If the anti ship FCASW variant is still years away the T26s are still going to need some AShM ability. Maybe then the TLAM v5/6 whatever one has the anti ship ability? Opposite end of the spectrum but why don’t they fit the Sea Venom and Martlet’s onto the Merlin’s for if needed?

          • Money, is the main preventer for such a fit but the Merlins primary role is ASW with nothing but a 50cal as a shooter. Wildcats are the main airborne Anti Ship weapon carrier in the RN. Far better ensure all the Escort Fleet gets this weapon (NSM) fit of choice as they come online which would be a major boost to the fire power of the Fleet. Standardisation for in the past the RN had many different anti-shipping weapons online at the same time, which was never a great idea for they all dropped out without replacement, poor management on the RN’s part. Each new fit is a boost and as the NSM can also hit land targets allows the Ship to support land ops too. Big thing about having them onboard is area denial to others when they know you have such a fit.

  2. It’s going to be a race to fit them to eleven T23s and T45s. The rate the T23s are disappearing, adding them to one ship a year isn’t going to cut it.

    • I suspect the thought process is that it gives another excuse to hide behind, on why the availability of escorts is so low.

      The real question is whether there will be a solution to this and I’m guessing not as too much money has already been wasted by the MOD and there isn’t going to be a sudden surge of extra cash. It would take decades to unwind all the bad contracts and fix value for money for tbe tax payer, but I doubt the government has a desire to tackle it as no doubt it would cost does in the short term even if there is long term savings.

    • Why bother fitting them ? Air launched anti ship capability is whatā€™s needed . Donā€™t think the Royal Navy has ever once sunk a warship with anti ship missiles . Radar canā€™t see other ships 200 km away so no one is sinking ships with these unless there is an aircraft giving the ship location to fire at in which case the aircraft would be better firing the anti ship missile rather than having to loiter to give target data .

      • It’s more to have options for land strike which with the exception of Tomahawk or naval gunfire the RN doesn’t really have. I agree with you on anti ship operations.

        • Indeed the reality is the ASuW is the gravy on the plate, but the land strike is the meat and potatoes that the RN wantedā€¦.the retirement of harpoon and the ā€œneed for an ASuW heavyweight missileā€ was probably just the excuse to be able to fund land strike.

      • The targeting data can be provided by other units. Plus Russian and Chinese platforms have ASMs, you do nor want to face down an ASM armed SAG with NOTHING at least this gives options on anti-ship and land attack. Also it makes are ships look weak and vulnerable compared to almost everyone else’s ships that have ASM. Also what if the ship is not working with a carrier abd away from a UK airbase where we have strike aircraft….

        • I canā€™t think of any past scenario where other ships where near enough to an enemy warship to give data to yet another warship to fire a missile at an enemy warship , it need to be from the air and youā€™d be as well firing from the air would you not ? War ships donā€™t face each other down . I donā€™t know of any warship thatā€™s sunk a warship with an anti ship missile .

          • The RN destroyed Iraqi patrol boats with ASM, and the Santa Fee was damaged by Wasps….with AS11s I think??

          • In 91 Lynx destroyed many Iraqi patrol boats, yes, with Sea Skua.
            In 82, I decided to double check wiki as I was only 10 at the time, the start of my military interest.
            Santa Fe submarine was attacked by a Wessex, a Lynx, and a Wasp. The Wasp used As12 missiles. Again, IDing the target was easier as it was surfaced and close to shore, a Wessex spotted her.
            Somewhat different to 2 ships as specs In the ocean lobbing missiles blind at each other.
            In the GIUK, the Soviets would use Bear as Martime reconn, I’d it had got to ww3 I’d imagine they’d have been taken out rapidly, cutting the fire chain..

          • Big Bulge radar on the Bears.
            Massive surface search radar used for OHT and mid-course updates.
            One of the primary targets in breaking a kill chain.
            No OHT and mid-course update …no inbound vampires.

          • Good point GB. I do have some sympathy for the poor crews Bear crews, their ears must have been ringing after a 12 hour sortie.

            One of the few aircraft designed to convert fuel into noise.ļ»æšŸ˜‰ļ»æ

          • Cheers Mate, HMS Brilliant had her Lynx in this fight, but was unsure if they actually used Sea Skua in the particular engagement.

            I couldn’t see things going well for Bears in the GIUK. The Yanks had F15 operating out of Iceland , and off course Tornados F3 operating North of the UK .

          • Skua was on board in 82 but not an IOC fit. They took it because they could.

            The following year we had skua down south. I joined Brilliant as an 18yr old baby tiff and went south on her in early 83. No dedicate skua mag fwd. of the hangar in those days. They where kept in the TAS Mag on 4 deck and you sent them up on the weapon lift as required.

          • Cool story GB; exciting times! In ’82 I was an 18 year old air force officer cadet. We used to watch the evening news, the images of Argie jets thundering down San Carlos sound. I think all the blokes on our pilot course wanted to fly SHAR after that campaign!

          • In reality..itā€™s blinking hard to find a ship on the occean, deck launched drones are short range and have little power..having the sensor power to find, fix track and report..then loiter for the missile to take 10-20 mins to arrive..without being shot down or shut down by electronic warfare capabilities is remoteā€¦if your looking at large long range drones they are high flying, again suffer from massive power and weight constraints for sensors and will be easy to see and shoot down..an escort is itā€™s very own integrated air defence system..you have to sneak up on it fire and run..not hang around going I can see you for 20 mins.

          • In 1967, the Israeli Navy’s destroyer Eilat was the first ship to be sunk by a ship-launched missile; a number of Styx missiles launched by Egyptian Komar-class missile boats off the Sinai Peninsula.

          • Air launched anti ship missiles, the RN have killed close to 20 vessels using sea skua..but never ship vs ship..the only common use of sea launched anti ship missiles has been from missile boats in the Middle East and Indian Ocean.

      • That depends on whether the aircraft in question can fire said missiles. Also remember we can’t have aircraft and subs everywhere. Every ship that can provide firepower whilst linked into the kill chain can take over one more responsibility from our overworked carriers and subs. Resources are limited.

        As for past experience, even during the Falklands we had ships blundering into each other (it was a bad time to be an Argentine freighter).

        Most importantly, what is heaviest missile that can be fitted to a Wildcat? I haven’t heard anyone say NSM, so if we feel we need it, on to the ship it goes!

        If we could get a heavy AShM onto a heli, it might be a different story.

        • It would be really good to have it on a heli yes . I just donā€™t see a U.K. frigate or destroyer bumping into a Chinese strike group on its own . But yes I get the kill chain and the possibility , like you say it donā€™t look good not having the capability and it stops other ships getting to close .

          • If we ever get heavyweight helijets and small expendable spotter drones with decent range, then a SAG group could even double as a mini-carrier group, but that is for the future.

            The REAL game changer would be if we can get lasers that can both fire effectively at sea, and also use atmospheric lensing to fire lasers over the horizon. That’s a very very long term speculative thought though.

            If only SSNs weren’t so expensive to make…..

        • You donā€™t actually need a heavyweight missile to mission kill a modern warshipā€¦infact they are generally very easy to mission kill and very difficult to sink.

          • DC parties are a thing.

            If the target gets home you might have to do the same rigmaroll all over again in the future.

            Send out airpower, cripple the enemy, then sic FFGs and DDGs on them with the heavy stuff through the kill-chain to make sure the enemy stays dead.

            Sea and air power can complement each other. Arguing against the presence of either is silly.

          • What Iā€™m arguing is that the priority should have been the air launched systems as all evidence is that they have by a county mile killed more surface vesselsā€¦once you have funded you airlaunched programs then by all means fund you ship launched heavyweight anti ship missiles on large surface vessels ..but one has proven to be profoundly more important.

        • Sea Venom is passive in homing using IIR. Wildcat can detect a target on ESM and ID it using EOS. No need to transmit on its radar although it is LPI which is a bonus.
          You hit a frigate or destroyer with a couple of Venom and its a mission kill/ Mission degrade at least till the DC parties and Weapon repair parties have done their stuff onboard.

          • Correct.

            Standard SAG group engagements may involve their onboard helos attempting to degrade enemy ships, followed by the least damaged side finishing off the other with helo-directed heavy AShM before their opponent’s DC parties can make good any damage.

        • Wildcat anti Ship options are:
          Martlet; 13kg missile with 3 kg warhead. 8km range.
          Stingray: 267kg Torpedo with 45kg warhead. 11km range.
          Sea Venom: 120kg missile with 30kg warhead. 20km range.
          Spear 3: 100kg missile with unknown sized warhead. 130km range.

          Tbh I would not want to be fighting a surface escort from a Helicopter.

      • Another reason why Tempest is an essential future requirement. A stealthy platform with long range, high altitude performance (with that huge wing) and large internal weapons bays, it will have any naval adversary very worried indeed.

    • But more and place them on the T31 Frigates too.
      If it was up to me place a couple on each Rivers in Asia and Falklands too. That would give the RN it’s teeth to bite anyone who messes with us.

        • I know it’s not mate.
          Monmouth and Montrose gone.
          Argyll no crew sold off.
          Westminster in shit state no refit.
          Northumberland rumoured same condition.
          The Tories did this….
          Morning pal.

          • The peace dividend did it (Cons)

            Deregulation of banking (Cons)

            Righteous sandbox war 1 (Cons)

            Every nursery assistant had to have a degree (Lab) don’t forget the laptops… Lab

            Everyone should have a degree… Lab

            Sand box wars 2 Lab

            Regime change 3 Lab

            The Peace Dividend… again?? (Lab)

            The banking crisis and world wide meltdown, I’m not pinning that on Labour but left them in a shit state.

            Cameron peace dividend… how many dividends can get paid out?

            Osborne – just an utter c#nt.

            Con mismanagement for 14 years.

            Truss and Bluffer, both to hung, drawn and quartered.

            And now, a cave in by Labour to rail and other unions of Ā£zillions, setting a very dangerous precedent

            Omens are not looking good for Defence.

            I hope you find this very quick analysis unbiased.
            Happy to be corrected by you.

          • Iā€™m not sure about the degrees for nursery assistantsā€¦I donā€™t think thatā€™s a thing šŸ„“

          • Back in the noughties, nursery assistants all went for degrees… and laptops. Teaching assistants must also have degrees.

          • No there has never been any qualification standard for a nursery assistant. But most can go for an apprenticeship that is a level 3 cert ( a level ) if they want to as that will allow them to manage a nursery.. but no they have never required nursery assistants to have degrees or any qualifications .. I know as one of my roles and degrees is as a registered child healthcare professional, so I was studying the whole childcare system in the 1990s including having placements in child care settings as part of studying child development.

            I think what you are getting confused with is the concept of the early years teacherā€¦this is a career that developed really from 2010 (under Cameron) but its a very specific ā€œteacherā€ based function and essentially exists because they moved the age that children start school from 5 to 4..itā€™s essentially also bollox and a waste of money because in reality you should not be formally teaching children until around 7 ( thatā€™s if you were following the actual evidence base) and until 7 children should simply be in play lead nursery settings ( which are cheap as chips compared to schooling).

            as for teaching assistants, that job requires four GCSEs including English and maths..nothing more nothing less. So no degree..if they are going for a degree itā€™s because they are working to qualify as a teacher..which many now do as a proper pathway for those who donā€™t wish to do full time university education from 18.

      • I don’t think Northumberland has officially hit the scrapheap yet. The way it’s shaping up we’ll be down to 6 by the end of 2026, 5 ASW and 1 GP. Northumberland, Richmond and Lancaster will go (Lancaster is supposed to go next year but Gunbuster reckons it will be fudged for an extra year).

        2027 could be a really rough year. I’m optimistic about Kent and hope it will be out of refit by 2027, but Portland will be in. Hopefully, Somerset will hold on until 2028, fudged past its mandatory Lloyds inspection date, but I think an OSD of May 2027 is also possible.

        So three years from now, Kent, St Albans, Sutherland and Iron Duke might be it. Glasgow and Active could be pressed into early service in an emergency, but relying on the notoriously unreliable first ships of their class doesn’t give me warm fuzzies.

  5. Isn’t about time we actually test fired one of these? Plus of course, now we actually have them, why arn’t we fitting more?

    • A Test Firing is obviously important but in the whole scheme of things might be delayed somewhat.Somerset is currently the TAPS Ship, so that would have a bearing on her availability to proceed to a Missile Range.Portland is next in line for NSM but she hasn’t recieved them yet.

    • Fitting of NSM is appalling slow. Itā€™s been almost two years since the announcement was made (Nov-22) and only one ship has been fitted and thatā€™s even without any test firing.

      1 ship down – 10 to go. At this rate, NSM will be obsolete by the time the remaining 10 ships are fitted.

      BTW – is the Type 31 go to get NSM from the Type 23s as they retire?

      • The question is whether it might be better to fit NSM straight to first two Type 31s, providing of course these enter service any where around the intended time table which is definitely running late

      • An interesting question which five T-23s are selected for NSM. Those to be retired first or last? Rationale for either option. šŸ¤”

      • Such have to be made and the UK order is in the line with many others so we have to wait them coming in. New production lines to come on line in future but mainly for their own needs in the USA and now Australia. The UK needs are small in number but really should be more as such a fit could easily be added to many other units greatly increasing the fire power of the RN at a relatively low cost. But such actions takes time and the idea has agreed too.

  6. Why is it only our navy that is so safety concious? I have noticed that unlike most nations, we always utilise efflux deflectors, missiles always face outwards, and avoid placing missiles amidship near funnels or too close to the edge.

      • No some cannister missiles are aimed inwards

        https:/ /i.redd. it/q08amyupl7r61 .jpg

        If you look at this Russian frigate you can clearly see an example.

    • The bad experiences of ā€˜82 caused a lot of lessons to be learned.

      Lessons that were rightly learned.

      Survivability is incremental and removing every possible face plant makes a massive cumulative difference.

    • Lessons learned …the hard way.

      Harpoon for example sits in its launch tube that is armoured. However its rocket booster would cause damage to the deck without the efflux deflector. A deck burn through would cause fires below, damage wiring and most importantly possibly compromise the WO cabins!

      Harpoon also had a metric **it tonne of JP fuel in it for the turbo jet which is again another hazard if it leaks. There are some other nasties in it as well. Certain chemicals and some small explosive squids not to mention the SAP Warhead.

      Lots of magazines that contain rocket propulsion ammo also have durestos cladding to stop burn through should a motor fire accidently in a mag. Little bit different in a mag so to stop over pressure you also have blow off plates that are soft patches to lbow out and vent the gass and of course auto water drench /spray systems.

      The bottom of the VLS Mk41 has efflux deflectors to ensure the launch efflux goes into the plenum chamber during launch or in a worst case during a hangfire where the missile motor fires and the missile stays in the tube burning away with its rocket motor…

      Exocet on T21 and T22 had durestos cladding on the bulkhead behind the missiles to deflect efflux and stop burn through. Sea Dart launchers had it on the blast doors again to stop burn through

  8. Will T31 get them? Logical fit considering theyā€™re going to be forward deployed and NSM can be used against land targets.

  9. the T23 In service with fitted towed array is still one of the most formidableASSW Platforms anywhere. I think more of the T23 fleet should have been configured that way. they are old ships yes, but judging by the way they have performed in the anti houthi efforts they are still top drawer vessels. were too keen to retire ships in this country Montrose and Monmouth had years of service left bin them.all of the Trafalgar submarines also were good for years more when evey one of them was withdrawn.

    • “…Montrose and Monmouth had years of service left bin them…”

      NO, they were all knackered!

      The Trafalgar subs did have their problems as well as limited driving cycles.

    • Montrose didn’t have years of service left.
      The hull was rotting out as where the pipework systems.
      I conducted a lot of UT surveys of various locations around holes we found and the steel was wasted a fair distance back from the actual hole.
      I put numerous inserts into it and renewed 100s of meters of various pipe systems during its time out here.
      At the end she was held together with black maskers and some creative engineering solutions just to get her back to the UK.
      She would have needed a massive refit that would have taken years to complete.

      T Boats where dived out. The hull only has a finite number of deep dives in it before you don’t want to do anymore dives. The core also starts top lose power as you use it up over time.
      The T boasts had almost no core life left and the hulls where past the max life for dives.

      • The fact that we gapped SSN and Escort builds for long is absolutely disgusting quite frankly GB.

        A friend who was involved in one of the T23 refits as a contractor, adding new secret squirrel electronic gizmos at the back end of the refits, was absolutely shocked at the amount of new steel inserts used to make the ship seaworthy again.

        • The Hulls are all well past their planned service and been worked hard on top of that. Should haev been replaced many years past and we are paying the price now. 5 are in the role of GP frigates so no tail but otherwise have the same fit. the new T31’s are really cheap replacement so need something at least to give them some hitting power and NSM would be a good fix for them. I think the RN should purchase a few more fits and if the new Anglo/French weapons come to be then such can be fitted to the T26’s and the freed NSM fitted to other units, all you need is deck space after all.

        • Steel inserts are to be fair easy to complete. It’s the work in way protecting compartment equipment in the vicinity that is the time-consuming part.
          You can either gas axe, plasma or use a cutting grinder to cut out the steel.
          Fit up the new steel and tack it in place.
          Weld multiple passes on the outside.
          Back grind if not using a backing strip and visually inspect.
          Back weld.
          Weld the stiffeners back on.
          VT/MPI/ Bomb the weld as required.
          If all’s ok paint it and rebuild the compartment.

          On Montrose one (of many!) of the inserts I did in the Hangar deck down into the JR heads was around 50x 50 cm.
          5 days start to finish and we only worked day shift. Working 24/7 we could do it in 3.

          When the USN still had PCs out here we did plenty of refits on them, most of which involved steel inserts.
          On one we replaced over 30% of the hull steel above the water line and below the deck edge and something like 25% of the underwater steel.

          On the commercial ships we work on its not unusual for a 5-10 year old VLCC or Container ship to have steel renewal measured in hundreds of tonnes in weight. Big inserts are a lot easier than small ones.

  10. Is this really cutting edge folks? I know money is a big consideration when trying to keep at least abreast of near peer enemies ? I will probably be lambasted by Weapons officianados but why can’t we develop a weapon in the Brahmos or Onyx class ..if you can’t project super stealthy over the horizon? Then at least get your projector there super fast ? & In numbers ….I live in the Clyde area .my grandfather was on HMS Avondale & HMS Rodney in WW2 .& It saddens me to think our modern day Sailors would ever have to repeat a Falklands scenario or worse folks ?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here