The Ministry of Defence has outlined ongoing work to enhance the firepower of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet as part of a broad modernisation drive.
In response to a written question from Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the Navy is “undertaking a significant programme to modernise and increase the lethality of the Fleet.”
He noted that “the introduction of Sea Venom and the Naval Strike Missile are key aspects of this programme, which will be followed by further capability upgrades over the next few years.”
According to the Ministry of Defence, these efforts form part of a wider strategy to ensure the Royal Navy retains the ability to counter evolving maritime threats through next-generation precision weapons and system upgrades.
The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) recently achieved its first successful live firing during Exercise Aegir 25 in Norway’s Arctic region, where HMS Somerset launched the weapon alongside Norwegian and Polish allies. The test marked what the Royal Navy described as a major milestone in strengthening its strike capability, demonstrating the deep cooperation between the UK and Norway in maritime defence.
Pollard said at the time that “the NSM is one of the most advanced missiles in our naval arsenal” and that its introduction “will give the Royal Navy and our allies an edge against our enemies.” The missile can engage both sea and land targets at ranges beyond 100 miles and is being integrated across the Type 23 and Type 45 fleets.
Could it be possible to develop a land variant? Similar to what the Yanks did with Tomohawks.
Poland already operates it from land
Fair enough. Probably wouldn’t be a terrible idea if the UK did something similar.
It’d be expensive to host an RA Regiment for the sole purpose of using these weapons, when the scenarios needed for them to be employed are practically doomsday level. Better to have the plans and expertise in place to know that it can be done, and leave it at that.
I’d argue there’s better ways to spend the cash at the moment, such as additional T31 orders.
What we really need is a credible air-launched anti shipping weapon for F35B. It’d not only solve the home defence problem more effectively than a land launched weapon, it’d also increase lethality of any QE task force. Strangely though, it seems to be amazingly low on the priority list for the RN.
A great focused take. If we have enemy surface ships within 100 miles of our coast in a conflict then we really are in serious trouble, better to have assets and lethality to keep them far distant from that point. Yes you might be on the cusp of a conflict with an enemy ship ‘legally’ cruising around at that point but then you aren’t free to take it out at that point and there are far better ways to negate its potential threat than a 100 mile range missile in a fixed location. As you say getting anti ship missiles on aircraft is far more important.
Should add Poland and Norway are a different proposition as Russian ships entering the North Sea would (or pushed closer to Greenland in Norways case) be in range of such a missile as they traverse the necessary open water, so the ships come to them.
Agreed . Putting JSM on UK F35 an absolute no brainer for me , should be No 1 priority for Defence and for once of equal benefit to RAF and RN In the recent Defence Committee enquiry into F35 aside from availablity the biggest criticism was lack of a stand off weapon which seriously compromised the advantage of stealth. We can’t afford to wait for SPEAR 3 integration and in any event when it does eventually arrive (;if ever – have my doubts) it’s range is limited by comparison and warhead far too small. JSM has already been integrated by USAF, Australia and of course Norway so the software fix is there – it’s high time that we joined.
It has not already been integrated, it is still in the pipeline.
Agreed, it’s crazy to have a strike force suitable for ops in the Pacific without the primary strike airframe not having an AShM.
To me, either we accept it as JSM on external hard points (less of a problem in terms of RCS than I think some people worry about), or we look at Sea Venom. It fits internally and it’s already drop launched, so can clear the bay before the rocket motor fires up. From a higher, faster platform it will have better range. It’ll just be a question if it needs a slightly better/longer motor to get the needed range.
JSM fits in f 35 weapons bay. Another tick on the long list of reasons to procure!
Hi Nate, does that hold true for F-35B? (The smallest bay of the three jets?)
For most of the models, yes. Last I heard, the F-35B can’t carry it internally because it has a shorter weapons bay. Unless they’ve made the JSM shorter recently?
Ah yes, you’re right about that. How disappointing!
They key, I guess is that F-35B remains undetectable as it get’s into JSM firing range.
I don’t really think Sea Venom and NSM are comparable in that Sea Venom is much shorter ranged (I defer to others if higher launch altitude would add the 90 or so nmi required to make it comparable?) and has a warhead 1/4 of the size.
Exactly that, in terms of the JSM/F-35B mix.
Oh, they really aren’t comparable. For a start Sea Venom doesn’t have any low-observable features that I’m aware of. it’s 1.5 m shorter and almost half the diameter- so volume for rocket motor and warhead are a different league. But it does fit inside the weapons bay on a F-35B and is drop-launch- which is a critical criteria for a bay launch, as I understand it. The warhead isn’t as much of a ship killer as JSM, but it’s enough to kill a corvette- so would still make for a very bad day for a frigate. Range-wise, it is less also. But with its current size you could possibly fit 2 per bay, which is not to be sniffed at. Or you could lengthen the body by at least half a metre and still fit one, giving more space for rocket motor and/or warhead.
Ultimately, I think the solution is externally carried JSM. But, if everyone insists that an AShM has to be internally carried, the next best solution is Sea Venom XL, as far as I can see. We really shouldn’t have binned Sea Eagle…
I’ve said before that MBDA should look at a bigger version of Spear-3. Something that is at least twice as big. As you’d be able to fit a pair side by side in each of the F35B’s weapons bays. Would give you the option of fitting a much bigger warhead, along with significantly more fuel.
Sea Venom is not designed for Jet launch
I know that it wasn’t part of the original design brief, however its form factor and aerodynamics are not at all dissimilar from fast-air launched weapons- so there’s no reason why it couldn’t be cleared for use from them.
JSM, Brimstone, by extension Spear, and a number of other systems are designed to be launched from both fast and slow platforms, some of them even rotary wing like Sea Venom. A number of them are designed to fall away before the motor ignites too, like Sea Venom, so I’m really not sure what the problem is.
Yes, you’d need some computer modelling, some wind tunnel time, and the loan of the jet with some test rounds. But you need to do most of that to qualify a munition for a specific aircraft anyway, regardless. It may be that something about the CoG and the wind resistance and the control surfaces mean that it can’t separate cleanly at fast jet speed without fundamental redesign. But that’s not a given, and I think it’d be worth doing at least the computer modelling and wind tunnel testing to find out.
It seems to be very low priority to get any British missiles to be compatible with the F-35B – should be a priority for us. Not being able to fit our missiles is, for me, a good reason to increase purchases of Typhoon and downgrade F35.
But the typhoon doesn’t have the same capabilities as the F35. Bang the drum all you want but the typhoon would be severely limited in a peer to peer engagment.
What??
So utilise F35’s stealth to lead a strike package of Typhoons carrying a long-range AShM. Let the F35 designate targets while the Typhoons remain at low level to avoid detection.
Right now our F-35s can only use AMRAAM, Sidewinders and Paveway gravity bombs; that’s far more limited than Typhoons.
Really we should integrate JSM onto both Typhoon and F35.
We use ASRAAM on our F35s instead of Sidewinder.
Respectfully Andrew, I would disagree.
Every single near-peer or peer nation on the planet (friendly or otherwise) is operating a mix of 4th and 5th Gen aircraft- or only 4th Gen in some circumstances.
Seeing as everyone is operating a high/low mix, Typhoon stays relevant until everyone is operating 5th and/or 6th Gen aircraft and have retired all their 4th Gen types.
The Australian Army has down selected two contenders for its Land 8113 Phase 2 project for a land based long range maritime strike missile. Under Land 8113 Phase 1 the ADF is already acquiring a regiment of 42 launchers (7 batteries) of HIMARS (deliveries have begun and test fired at exercise Talisman Sabre). HIMARS long range PrSM missile (currently greater than 300km with future ER variants out to 1,000km) is one option. The second contender is the NSM with Strikemaster launchers (a variant of the Australian Bushmaster vehicle). The NSM is already entering service with the RAN and its air launched JSM version with the RAAF.
With both Raytheon (RTX) and Kongsberg setting up production/assembly facilities in Australia, the decision on a maritime strike missile will be down to cost, range, suitability for maritime strike and commonality of launch platform. Pros for PrSM include longer range than NSM and purchase of an additional regiment of HIMARS launchers is also significant increase in GMLRS land based strike although work still needs to be done on PrSM Increment 2 to develop a proven maritime strike capability and cost per round will be significantly higher than NSM. NSM with its sea skimming profile and blast fragmentation warhead is better optimised and proven ship killer and its acquisition would increase interoperability with the USMC who use a similar twin launcher JLTV mobile variant for its NEMESIS capability developed for operations in the Pacific.
While a land based maritime strike missile might not make sense for the UK, in the context of a conflict in the Pacific island chain and the key choke points across the archipelago its deployment is a ket part of US and its Pacific allies strategy. It’s also a useful A2AD deterent for maundering Chinese naval task groups prone to circumnavigating Australia.
‘Meandering’ Chinese naval task groups.
Laundering is better
Agreed, even just a few dozen JSM (although not the most far reaching or heavyweight AShM) available for F-35Bs would give the carrier group a basic standoff capability to engage peer enemy naval forces (or for limited strikes against ground targets), and can also be used to provide defence around UK waters in a way that is much more efficient than any land-based battery).
Even just a few dozen JSM (although not the most far reaching or heavyweight AShM) available for F-35Bs would give the carrier group a basic standoff capability to engage peer enemy naval forces (or for limited strikes against ground targets), and can also be used to provide defence around UK waters in a way that is much more efficient than any land-based battery).
JSM makes a lot of sense, especially as it’s already compatible with our P-8As. For defence around the UK, I’d also want to see them on Typhoon, as they’re our primary QRF.
I thought the RAF wanted Stormbreaker.
I think Stormbreaker is more along the lines of Spear 3, nowhere near the same weight class as the AShMs that would knock out an escort. They may be able to mission kill systems, but that’s about it. If memory serves, they’re also unstealthy and unpowered, so susceptible to a ships CIWS.
I think they only want them because it’ll be the best part of a decade before Spear3 gets integrated at this rate…
I think it has an I/R seeker and image recognition and good stand off range so it’s a significant improvement on Paveway. Don’t know if it’s been tested against naval targets. Point taken on Spear 3.
The RAF are desperate for a stand-off weapon for the F35. Stormbreaker being the unpowered small diameter glide bomber, is a cheap fix, is currently available and meets some of the requirements. Its already cleared on the F35 and the F35B will be able to carry four in each internal weapons bay, to give a total of 8 carried internally. The F35B will also be able to carry an additional 8 under each wing, thereby giving a total of 24 carried by the aircraft. The weapon is pretty light at 250lbs (113kg), but contains a 105lbs (48kg) programmable warhead. As the weapons is unpowered, its range is determined by the release speed and height. Though I’ve heard Raytheon (RTX) are looking at a powered version, which would then make it a direct competitor to Spear-3.
It can do some of the roles that Spear-3 can, such as specific static and moving targets. But it has to follow either a ballistic or shallowish glide path. Whereas Spear-3 can do nap of the earth flying towards the target as well as a modicum of loitering.
Clear summary; thanks. I think the decision is something of a ‘no brainer’. I see the issue as generically similar to Apache and P8. What we are buying is a complete weapons platform. Depriving the RAF of a capability we urgently need in order to cut future costs by anticipating a ‘standard’ is being taken to excess.
Agree. The UK doesn’t need land based ASM. If it ever came to the point where we needed them we’d be screwed anyway.
If need be could the new UK-German land attack missile be given anti ship capabilities? 2000km range is substantial. Like with the Tomahawk in the Typhon system.
A lot will depend on whether it’s fitted with a seeker. Otherwise it will only be able to hit grid coordinates.
With both the UKs and Germany’s experience designing “smart” cruise missiles. I’d say it’s a given that a very long cruise missile will have a seeker, which is probably IR based. If the joint collaboration is to build a cruise missile. If the missile has what is used in Storm Shadow, the IR seeker has the ability to recognize ships.
I still find it remarkable that Storm Shadow hasn’t been given a software upgrade, to allow it to find and track moving ships?
Maybe what we should be saying to Trump is, we’ll consider air-launched JASSM on our F-35Bs if he would apply pressure to LM to prioritise resolution of TR3-Block4. I suppose it’s a lottery how he might react and might just see it as we do, between a rock and a hard place!
I can see a point to RM having such a capability but equally it could be addressed using HIMARS style systems.
Hi Jim, Add the USA (deployed) and Australia (on order) to that list, the USMC is really buying into them for land deployment from islands in the Western Pacific. I have always liked how the USMC is quite prepared to buck the “Not invented here” attitude of the other 3 US services when it sees a need. Let’s face it if they hadn’t taken a shine to the Harrier and VTOL we would probably never have developed the F35B to replace it.
Improvise, Adapt and Overcome.
To be fair, Kongsberg have teamed with Raytheon. This is in two parts, the first is set up a manufacturing site in the US. Which then also gets over the “not built in the USA” political hurdle.
Where’s the mention of any quantities here? Wasn’t it 11 sets of 8? For all the T45s, T23s, T26s, and T31s might need more than 11 sets if you’re going to need cover every ship prior to FC/ASW and have reserves. And any JSM for F35Bs, Typhoons and P8s?
I assume the plan is either to fit them to only the destroyers and the Type 31 frigates, as the Type 26 frigates will have VL-ASMs like FC/ASW.
That, or they’ll rotate them between ships as they do with Phalanx units.
Such a perpetual peacetime strategy. Loose a vessel at sea and nothing to transfer to buddy vessel in port. Ho hum.
Rotating a very limited number of systems is a reckless game of Russian roulette. As soon as conflict starts, losing ships means losing those capabilities the pool systems theoretically provided for other ships. That’s just madness. Reckless even in benign peacetime, which is nowhere near todays dire threat climate.
I thought the plan was for NSM to go onto the current fleet of escorts, so T23 and T45. As 23s were retired, transfer to T26/31, with a preference that T26 get the FC/ASM and T31 get the NSMs?
Yeah, they’ll go to the current frigates, but I can’t see them going to the Type 26 frigates over the relatively underarmed Type 31.
You can’t just rotate the nsm’s to other ships unless they’ve had the ‘floorboards up and routed all the necessary wiring/control gear (it’s a another dockyard job first)
Might be good to have a hi-lo mix of NSM/FCASW, in both vls and cannister. The Norwegian T26s were showing a 4×4 NSM mount, on the hangar, same as the Constellation class so I wouldn’t sneeze at this, it can be done if needed. Only 3 mk41s for AA, ASuW and ASW. Need to move from lots of talking on increasing lethality to actually doing it!
Agree with the urgent need for more all round but what British ships have: “Only 3 mk41s for AA, ASuW and ASW”? I thought the only ships where we know for sure what they are getting is T26, with 24 (3×8) Mk41 for land attack/anti-ship and maybe ASW but it also has 48 Sea Ceptor cells for AAW.
Yes 48 CAMM is pretty decent, something I would’ve liked to have been done on the T45 upgrades too for more shots.
Might be useful for T26s to have some CAMM-MR in the mk41s for a bit extra long range defence. And if the T31s get mk41s are the CAMM going into that (32) or ExLS (24) or a CAMM farm (24)? Lots of options.
Lots of options and no money
T26 wont have mk41 AAW
Encouraging news and not before time to deliver new weapons and technology to the fleet.
Indeed. Nelson would be impressed, probably by how long it has taken for the RN to reacquire the ability to sink a ship.
@Jim
Absolute rubbish. Poland has NOT deployed NSM on land. The missile has been ordered for delivery 2026-2032 but there have been no deliveries yet. Why do you bother posting crap like this when its so easy to check the facts? Idiot
Seriously, if he’s put down incorrect information, update him and us. We’ll chat about it and debate it. There’s a good community here withe the best intentions.
No need to call anyone an idiot.
It’s a bit out of order calling people idiots. I know zilch about NSM but, if I type “Naval Strike Missile in Polish Service” into Google the response is such:
“Poland operates its Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Coastal Defence System through two existing Naval Missile Units (NDRs) and is expanding this capability by ordering two more divisions, which will increase the number of NSM batteries and command vehicles.”
I also read an article on a site called NavalNews discussing the possibility of transferring units of Polish Coastal Batteries to Ukraine, missiles, radars and launchers. This article states: “The Polish CDS fires the Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace NSM (Naval Strike Missile) Block 1 missiles.”
Now, I don’t know if that’s all accurate but, if it is, you’d have to surely consider the possibility that you are the idiot, right?
Quite obviously David Lloyd is the idiot here, and an unnecessarily badly mannered one at that…..
Calm down. I recommend a nice cup of camomile tea.
The UK needs a heavy air launched ASM on it fixed wing fighters yesterday.. that’s the most important lethality upgrade as well as a long range strike weapon for the F35bs.. just grin and bare it and buy GBU 53 for the F35Bs that will give a 110km range strike capability as well as the ability to hit moving targets such as ships and as soon as its integrated get the NSM airlaunched version on the F35b.
Were not getting JSM for a mix of cost and stealth reasons
JASSM and JASSM-ER
Launched from what.
Hi UKDJ
Any chance you could add a ‘Newest/Oldest’ filter to your comments section, please?
Much as I enjoy all the comments, if I return to an article after a few hours it can be hard work scrolling through a lot of what I’ve already read to find the latest ones.
Thanks.
Seconded.
It makes a dramatic difference to the readability of the comments.