NsmssRecently, the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) was observed onboard a Type 23 Frigate. Let’s take a very brief look at this advanced missile system.
Developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA), the NSM is known for its flexibility in targeting both maritime and land threats.
The NSM is distinguished by its airframe design and a high thrust-to-weight ratio, granting it superior manoeuvrability. It operates passively and has demonstrated exceptional sea-skimming capabilities and advanced terminal manoeuvres to elude enemy air defences.
A key feature of the NSM is its Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR), which accurately identifies and strikes the intended target, whether at sea or on land.
Technical specifications of the NSM include a high subsonic speed, a weight of 407 kg (897 lbs), a length of 3.96 m (156 inches), and a range of over 185 km (100 nm). The missile was originally named Nytt sjømålsmissil in Norwegian, translating to “New sea target missile”, and was later marketed in English as the Naval Strike Missile.
Incorporating advanced composite materials, the NSM is designed with stealth capabilities in mind. The missile’s lightweight structure is paired with a high strength titanium alloy blast/fragmentation warhead from TDW, containing insensitive high-explosive.
This warhead is activated by a void-sensing Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze, designed to enhance its efficacy against hard targets.
The NSM’s flight characteristics allow it to traverse over landmasses, stay low over the sea, and perform unpredictable manoeuvres in its terminal phase, complicating interception efforts.
The missile’s capability to engage both sea and land targets is enhanced by its imaging infrared (IIR) seeker and an onboard target database.
With the UK’s selection of the NSM, it joins several other nations, including Norway, Poland, Malaysia, Germany, the USA, Japan, Romania, Canada, Australia, and Spain, in deploying this missile system.
Shame they’re not being fitted to all 23’s and 45’s 😎
We’re getting enough to fit on 11 ships at any one time. That’s pretty much the entire active escort fleet.
Which is a stark and tragic fact on itself
Oh, you won’t find me arguing with that. 😀
Will it fit on an archer?🙏,,
I thought archer was only the gun system not the truck it is put on the back of.
Yes, it is, but a containerised NSM could be transferred between ships and vehicles and would be a very useful development
I was not disputing that. I was just helping explain.
NSM is already in service with Norway, Poland and the USMC as a truck mounted Coastal Defence system. And then British Army has Sky Sabre which just happens to use the same SAAB Giraffe radar, also mounted on a Truck.
Yes
Something similar for the Marines would be nice, given NSMs relatively small dimensions.
FYI the missile may not be huge but to field a useable battery of say 12 NSM’s (remember they are containerised) requires @ 6 x 4 Lorry’s. The Poles use 9 Lorries but that does enable them reload the Battery, they have 2 and 4 more on order. 3 MLV (Missile Launch Vehicles). 1 BCV (Battery Control Vehicle). 1 MCC (Missile Control Vehicle). 1 MRV (Missile Radar Vehicle). + 3 TLV (Transport Loader Vehicles). And it costs @£300 million Which probably makes it the largest, most complex and expensive bit of the RMs would deploy. But if you bought just… Read more »
Don’t we issue shovels to ROYAL?
They can just dig in!
It’s not as if they are the most elite, premium infantry we have, is it?
Why do they need expensive systems for protection? Gordon Bennet, you’ll be suggesting they need rations next rather fishing from the sea!
Like a bit of sarcasm in the morning. It’s supposed to be the lowest form of humour which is probably why I like it.🤣 I don’t actually think it would be a good fit for the RM’s, because they are transitioning back to their traditional role of Commandos. The USMC have them because they see the US held islands in the western Pacific as a way to distribute firepower and hold territory. And they have way more heavy lift capacity than we do. We already operate a mobile Truck based AA Missile system which just happens to use the SAAB… Read more »
I see
But for £300m you might as well get another T31 and stick it near the Falklands
Better capability and you don’t need to call in the RAF to move it
Have a read of my reply to Sailor Boy it explains why it is a sensible and cost effective solution. As for a T31 they cost a lot more than £300 million. The original Babcock contract was for £1250 million for 5 ships. But that doesn’t include the Government supplied equipment such as Radar, CMS, Guns, Missiles, Helicopters, ESM/ECM, sonar, etc etc. Also due to inflation (and Babcock didn’t build in a sufficient margin) they are having to renegotiate that contract. So my guess is it will be @£500 million all in, which is cheaper than a T26 B2 but… Read more »
Or, an even more cost-effective solution would simply be to integrate NSM on Typhoon so that the fairies aren’t trying to sink ships with guided bombs.
No additional manpower or equipment needed, and it has the lovely benefit of also giving us anti-ship capability for the UK mainland and the eastern Med from RAF Akrotiri, where there just so happens to be both a Russian naval base and some erstwhile allies who often forget what side they’re on.
Good points, thanks for long reply
It’s an interesting comment on UK defence that lack of mobility is now useful to prevent politicians moving stuff about.
I’ve outlined elsewhere ideas for a T31 based class of Offensive Patrol Vessels (same acronym to sneak past Treasury) with mission bay in place of VLS to act as raiding and MCM platform in denied areas. For the Falklands you just use steel is cheap, air is free and don’t carry them.
nor me
Put it on every vessel that can carry them I’m especially interested in the land attack capability of it range? If the range is high then it will give the CSG a lot more teeth
No point of having NSM on an out of service vessels! Only on an active duty ships. Once the racks are fitted in place and wired up, it should be easy to move the boxes of NSM around.
Indeed, which is why I was pleasantly surprised when they purchased 11 systems…for distribution…it means plenty of redundancy and the ability to ensure a ship never deploys with them.
Andy it requires a Target location before being fired and with that range it has to be at least an Artisan or another modern 3D Air/Surface such as the SAAB Giraffe series.
Remember radar horizon is only around the 20-30mile range..for land attack of fixed targets they can use their maximum range…for moving ships they will always be limited by your ability to manage a kill chain…and for a single escort that’s the 20-30 mile radar horizon.
Lynx/Wildcat practised and carried out OHT lots of times on Harpoon equipped T23s. Using their own onboard sensors (Radar, EOS or ESM) they could pass targeting info (Via HF secure comms no data link…yet) back to the shooter.
CSG has F35B with far more range and usually an Astute with Tomahawks.
It’ll be a slow process fitting them and won’t be completed before the remaining T23’s start to be replaced by the T26/T31 in the late 2020’s.
By the time the last 5 ASW T23’s go out of service who know’s what’ll happen. Those launchers could end up on the T31’s but now that they’ll have MK.41 VLS the options will be wider.
That is 88 (11 sets of 8 tubes) options across the fleet….assuming that the CMS is there to plug into.
Most of it can be done quite quickly in the wall.
The racks are not a big deal to fit.
Wiring harness is pretty simple.
Controller cabinets are tiny compared to Harpoon. Doesn’t need the crazy range of odd voltages that Harpoon needs.
Craning the missiles on will be standard ammunition jetty stuff.
So once #1 is done then I’d expect the rest to go on pretty smartly.
Potentially RFA vessels? Feasible? 🤔
Nope not got the radar.
Possible to lash a Saab Giraffe radar system to an RFA deck? PerhBlue sky speculation, but diversifying/augmenting fleet defense v. surface threats may become a real priority in the foreseeable future. 🤔
Perhaps blue…🙄
Oh M8, there is Blue Sky thinking and then there are some ideas that really shouldn’t be outside someone’s nightmares. RFA’s are civilian manned and way too vulnerable and valuable to risk. If you lose the RFA’s you can’t replenish or support Naval operations at sea. So RFA’s try to avoid being a target as they are usually one of the key ships that need defending. RFA ships tend to be very large, slow and full of things like fuel, munitions, food or 100’s of troops. So sticking offensive missiles on them is “counter productive” to their life expectancy. Your… Read more »
It’s actually really quick..they installed NSM in Somerset during a planned return for a review of its systems post refit…they started fitting NSM in sept and she was back in active service in Oct….basically they can shove this on during any post deployment work or anytime the ship can be spared for a month two….I would suspect we will see this work rushed through pretty quick…..the RN will want a good number deployed before declaring the exact date of harpoon out of service.
And prior to CSG 2025.
Hopefully as it’s well over a year away, you would hope at least one or two of the escorts so equipped…although in reality the CSG is probably the formation that does not need NSM…if there was any risk you would never be letting a target that close and the air-wing should make sure of swift targeting faraway as well as an SSN…with the CSG air wing being the ultimate strike package…more than anything it’s the single deployments that need NSM as it gives them meaningful teeth and a strike capability.
Hmmm…actually considered it to be a strictly defensive measure, not offensive. Enhancement of other self-defense measures such as Phalanx, 30 mm mounts, etc., that would be manned by an RN detail. Rather like armed merchant vessels of previous conflicts. 🤔
However, topic admittedly not w/in my wheelhouse…🤯
An additional thought is that regardless of which vessels ultimately host systems w/ missiles such as Aster, FC/ASW, NSM, Tomahawk, etc., responsible parties need to absorb the lesson learned from UKR conflict that war reserve stockpiles disappear rapidly in real conflicts. Would be quite inconvenient to exhaust munitions at a critical juncture and have to request a ceasefire for 24 to 36 months in order to rearm. Not certain that Uncle Sugar’s war reserve stockpiles will be able to accommodate emergency requests from all allies, across all munitions. The fact that the EU will fall short in delivery of 1M… Read more »
Of course, comments re US stockpiles of certain munitions cited in post above, which are not manufactured or employed by the US, are NA.
They could also go on the T26s as on the Australian and Canadian variants. Freeing up MK41s for other missiles.
The RN will want T31 in service as soon as possible, A guess would be that the first pair of T31s will have Ceptor cells and NSM and the later build T31s will have all Mk41 at build….for FCASM and Sea Ceptors in ExLS adaptors. I expect that following the announcement of Mk41 for the T31, Babcock, the RN and the MOD are working through the cost and delivery options.
They should be
Thought all T45s were to fitted with NSM
River Class patrol ships would suit these to increase their capabilities.
Not really, they’re main goal is patrolling and they shouldnt be expected to engage any major targets. At most they need some minor air defense abilities added.
War has a habit of not limiting itself to the most “fights” vessels. Therefore a retrofit of NSM and 40mm Bofors guns for River batch 1+2 would seem very sensible.
The Batch ones are quite literally offshore patrol so i do not see any weapon upgrades happening to them, especially with only maybe a decade of service left. Batch 2s do not have the crew or survivability to operate in a combat environment. At most id suggest a 40mm for dealing with drones, maybe missiles if they get lucky. But to expect them to be firing off NSMs isnt realistic.
Plus this is an interim weapon, were only getting enough to equip the escort fleet till the Fcasw comes online.
I suspect we will see NSM as a medium tier weapon on some platforms for a long time even when FCASW comes into service.
Having something mid priced to use to attack static land targets is quite valuable on T31 and T45.
So I’d see it as deck mounted on T45 for its lifetime and probably in Mk41 VLS on T31. But nothing has been announced.
It would not surprise me if we don’t actually see the deck launchers on the T31 to be honest….we still don’t know how many mk41 silos and how many CAMM silos there will be as a weapon fit.
I would not be surprised if we don’t see a fit of 16-24 mk 24 silos, 12-18 CAMM silos as well as deck mounted NSM….giving it a good standard fit of CAMM and NSMs as the obvious deterrent and the MK41 silos as the nasty surprise…the have a guess element….
I totally agree. Given the threat scape I do see an increase in Sea Ceptor as a cheap way to make the ship a lot safer and be able to defend against a range of threats. The 57/40mm combo is highly capable. That said I do see the offensive weaponary as being vitally important so I do think we will see a full size VLS farm as an extension if the T32 logic of build it big so it can be upgraded. I’d see Mk41 missile acquisition as being a lot slower. Probably a lot of cheaper end shots to… Read more »
I do wonder if the RN will end up making a modest tomahawk purchase for those MK41 silos…knowing that a type 31 could be loaded with a tomahawk strike package will turn it into a significant deterrent piece.
I thought FC/ASW was two systems, a sub sonic cruise missile, plus a supersonic anti ship version?
If that is still the case, I can’t see us buying Tomahawk, not unless FC/ASW is delayed. Especially as NSM has land attack capability.
And the Rivers don’t have a radar suitable to operate them so totally pointless.
Minimum in RN is Artisan, which is too big for a River. The best lighter option would be a SAAB Sea Giraffe so more £££ which we don’t have.
I agree can’t see it happening however other nations manager to put hard hitting missiles on there patrol vessels some smaller than our River’s batch 1+2.
Must admit this is totally out of my area of expertise, but that thought (as it just did earlier here), keeps coming to mind when I constantly read the Batch 2 suitability for such armament just doesn’t exist, or lacks any logic. What is the logic then for these other small vessels having such armament are they purely a waste of time? As we don’t have shore based anti ship systems I can understand why the Rivers might be considered an alternative freeing up precious larger assets a little more blue sea flexibility. That said ain’t gonna happen I guess… Read more »
Your right won’t happen ,it all comes down to same old problem money 💰some people say OPV and not to be in a fight true to an extent ,but with RN not having surplus vessels like 80s early 90s ,one should think the fight may come to OPVs 👍 🇬🇧
The Rivers are simply ships that are kept away from the fighting. They are not war-ships at all. An OPV has to do just that, patrol. Attacking is never going to be an option without compromising their designed role.
Agreed. This Red sea business can quickly go big. Besides fitting the River2s with more fire power means they become sea denial and we need a corvette sized vessel in any case.
River is already corvette sized. A better idea would be a less capable AH140 design (T31) that has the NSM but only CAMM rather than MK41, with larger boat bays and space used for carriage of marines for coastal raids.
OK but How long would it take to get any of those built? All the frigate build facilities are now fully booked and since we are now Uparming the T31s it doesn’t make sense to Dearm them; aint going to happen. River 2s could be built in many smaller yards like Fergussons or Portsmouth if reopened and armed or rearmed much the same scale as the coastal attack vessels like Norway and Finland possess. UK Being on the edge of Blue waters with commitments 8000 miles away they are showing their worth. I just worry they are effectively just targets… Read more »
Not Fergussons, unless we want them to be 8 years late & 3X the cost, while the managers pay themselves big bonuses 😅 But yes, the River 2s are Not warships, just patrol boats. They cannot withstand shock effects, are too slow at 20kts & their weaponry is puney. They could have a 56mm gun fitted being much better than the very short ranged 30mm, but they cost so much to build that they were never going to have an expensive weapons fit, just a fisheries patrol fit.
We have a frigate factory that already exists for T31 hull it’s unlikely that it will receive the T83 order due to BAE’s superior claim to the programme, so it is logical that they will be given something to do, like the RB2s were for Glasgow, until next big project. A T31 OPV ticks all boxes: it is capable of development/ FFBNW is necessary, supports an efficient existing yard and would me more capable of defending itself than any development or conversion of Rivers. Also has added space for small boats and an embarked military force for coastal raids
The reality is the rivers 2s should not really be deployed east of suez…or into the Baltic.. lets be honest they are going their because of a lack of escorts and they should be pulled back as soon as possible.these are not fighting ships, their sensors are basic, they don’t have soft kill, even if you gave them some self protection your not getting beyond the limitations of the hull…the only way to build in adequate defences and offensive systems ( turn them into corvettes) would be to increase top weight, massively up crew ( every system needs its operators… Read more »
No frigate will ever achieve the availability rates of the Rivers. There is no war going on in the Pacific, nor in the Baltic.
You wouldn’t want Fergusons building an OPV and Portsmouth could also build a T31 as it was designed for building a T45.
The only situation a River would be in real danger is the ME which is why they aren’t deployed there.
Do you mean the ex Vospers Shed they built some of the River class sister ships in ? Because if you do it’s only big enough for part of a T45 not a whole one, they built the forward hull blocks and that’s all. The original plan for T45 (when we were going for 12) was an all BAe solution using both yards on the Clyde and Barrow. Then MOD needed to have a rethink and reality check. BAe couldn’t cope with surface builds and Astute at the same time. Costs for Astute were rocketing due entirely to MOD not… Read more »
Do you mean the ex Vospers Shed they built some of the River class sister ships in down at Portsmouth ? They only built the forward E/F blocks, the funnels and masts there. Since then they built some parts for the QE’s and then it shut to shipbuilding. Rosyth is run by Babcock and as it had to be kept busy so it can support the QE’s it had the investment to build the T31. and that gave MOD a 2nd string to give BAe some competition (which has worked really well ££ wise). People keep on going about re… Read more »
The Portsmouth shipyard is 100% large enough for a T45. The plan was for BAE to build ships 1 and 2, and Vosper to build ship 3 from the B1 order, with Vosper building 1/3 of the 9 others that were to be ordered. Fergusons is a tiny yard, the OPV would also have to be built outside. There’s zero point building an OPV there when BAE can build them indoors at Govan once T26 moves to the build hall, and Rosyth can build them in the Sandown facility which could build up to ~70m but could easily be lengthened.… Read more »
I didn’t mean downarming the current batch, I meant a new 10 or so to keep Rosyth going and get costs down. Would replace river 1s in numbers and RB2s in role, with an expansion of capability
I do wonder if the type 32 will simply be a type 31 with more of a focus on autonomous systems for the littoral battle space…with a focus back to more what the type 31 was going to be….
As you say basic self defence, some basic form of local/short range area defence( 18 CAMM)…lots of space for marines and autonomous vehicles….after all something will need to cart the autonomous mine warfare stuff into areas with a bit more threat that you want a large RFA vessel to go.
Controlled by what and directed by what radar?
The Rivers were never meant to be full fat warships.
They were OPV’s with very long legs.
👍
Thank God someone knows you need a decent Radar and CMS in order to acquire the target and feed it into the missile.
US LCS2, Norwegian Skjolds, Polish Coastal batteries all use the SAAB Giraffe with NSM and funnily enough so do the British Army in Sky Sabre 🤔
Sounds fine except the grave risk of deploying warships with no meaningful ability to either defend themselves or deal with enemies. Wars tend to occur inconveniently & no enemy will go easy or forgo attacking a sitting duck. OPVs are legit targets.
But deploying an OPV to “monitor the situation” is much less likely to cause WW3 than even a frigate with missiles. The ability to demonstrate a lack of aggression whilst still indicating displeasure is a useful diplomatic knack that the Chinese seem to have got on the wrong side of re Philippines
I think you are right about not threatening. I don’t want our sailors to be in harms way without an ability to reasonably defend themselves.
Indeed, protection of crews is a priority.
A corvette is a sufficient threat to warrant a pre-emptive attack to start a war, but not a large enough platform with AA missiles etc to defend itself on independent ops. The nations that are pointed out above as operators of the corvette use them as a deterrent to amphibious assault; they sally out to sink the landing force with no expectation of survival.
On the open ocean, a corvette is as good as dead if it is deployed as an independent warship on offensive operations.
in reality more wars have been prevented by use of deterrence…sticking your nose in without capability or showing your have capability is a very good way to start and loss a war…showing up with overwhelming deterrent tends to mean a war never start.. Prime examples the US and china in the 19th century..Both had reasons they wanted to go to war with Britain 1) the US was desperate to steel Canada from the despised British…they wanted it for almost 100 years…but never invaded .the problem was the RN at vast expense made it very clear to the US that any… Read more »
The US did invade Canada. War of 1812. It set the direction for the US into the next century for it’s current borders and also settled all of the British North America border issues.
Yes I know that Mickey..but I was talking about the period from1815 to 1895 (the beginning of the great rapprochement)..in the time up until the rapprochement the US would have happily invaded Canada the moment it thought it could have got away with it…infact the only reason it did so in 1812 was because Britain was entirely tied up with napoleon and Napoleon was at the hight of his power…so there was no deterrent…the war of 1812 in no way settled anything in the minds of the US…it was the power of the RN to destroy its trade that settled… Read more »
The Treaty of Oregon settled a lot of US ambitions for British North America. However it left a bad taste in the mouths of Canadians as Lord Aberdeen settled on the boundaries of what is now currently Oregon and Washington state. Aberdeen really pissed off a lot of Canadians hence the nascent start of Canadian nationalism. The US and Britain were close to a conflict over this and both sides did not want a fight especially as the US was involved in the Mexican War at this time too. The Hudson’s Bay Company had posts and settlements all over what… Read more »
Indeed and that is the point there were a number of flash points but it never went to war…the US government was quite happily invading other nations in that time period and with out deterrence of the navy would undoubtedly have attempted to annex Canada….they did not want war because they knew the impact would be awful for their economy..the UK did not want war because it was quite happy with the status quo…there are a few good papers around that show the Uks ability to deter and maintain a viable deterrent actually fascinated the transition of hegemony from the… Read more »
Totally agree.
Also the UK/Canadian colonies were worried about Russia (Alaska) and its borders with what is now Yukon and British Columbia. Quick settlement with the US was in order. The Crimean war was on the horizon then and started a few years later
What enemy would attack a River?
One that wants to make a point. Imagine the Iranians trying to kidnap the crew for show. Oh wait, that’s already happened before.
👍
That is why they aren’t deployed in the Middle East.
Practically any! I’m talking about in a war-any enemy ship is fair game, naval at least.
The Rivers wouldn’t be anywhere near any war.
well if they are our enemy, any of them would to be honest…when China decides to go hot it will probably use strategic surprise and you would not want to be in the western pacific at that point ( their first move will be to try and cripple any western military assets in the western pacific) ….the eastern med has a few groups that hate us in principle and one has plenty of ASMs. Clearly the Houthi will throw missiles and drones at anything western in the Red Sea and gulf of Aden…Iran would happily play games with a river… Read more »
A Chinese first strike will not have a River in its top million targets. China does not have enough submarines or ASBM to go after a River. The River would then return to Portsmouth far away from the danger. The Rivers in the Indian Ocean are perfectly safe. T31 will not be able to have anywhere near the availability that the Rivers do.
The Rivers aren’t in the Gulf or Red Sea for a reason.
The B1 Rivers aren’t really in the firing line. Sure they deployed to the Baltic but that was just to beef up the numbers.
Hi Louis, transit time out of the western pacific theatre would prolonged…it could not transit out of via the Indian Ocean as china has already sown up that key choke point..it would need to either transit towards quam or down to Australia..both would be major threat axis and high risk in fact the entire pacific will be a huge battle ground….as for not enough assets…the PLAN has hundreds of surface combatants and 80 odd submarines….getting out of the immediate theatre if it was plodding around the western pacific would be a 4-5 day sprint through a very high risk theatre… Read more »
The PLAN is not going to hunt down a River in the vast expanse of the Pacific. The PLAN has around 70 subs not including Ballistic missile subs. Let’s say 50 are operational, of which only half a dozen are nuclear powered. They are not going to waste their time with a River. Not sure where they are now, but Spey was in Singapore a few days ago, and Tamar in Hawaii a few days ago. If it’s visiting a port then it’s vulnerable to ballistic missiles so every single RN vessel is helpless in that scenario. If in transit… Read more »
Interestingly Taiwan and a growing number of respected analysts do think china will achieve surprise. Essentially china works up close to full mobilisation every year and the exercise in which it cuts of Taiwan are essentially the moves it would make…there is a growing concern that the first indication the western world and Taiwan will know that WW3 has started is when china launches its assault and attacks the military infrastructure of the U.S and Japan. As for hunting down a rivers..no they will not..but they will be hunting the US navy and allies and they will not just go…..aww… Read more »
The pacific is massive. The chance for a submarine to stumble upon the River is next to nothing. These 50 Chinese submarines will be focussed on blockading Taiwan and attacking shipping in the SCS. Only half a dozen are nuclear powered so most wont be able to deploy much further. A River can outrun a diesel sub anyway. No country starts a war with another country by sinking a practically unarmed OPV. It would be like Russia attacking the UK and it’s first strike consisting of attacking the RAF University air squadrons. Yes it would be better if a frigate… Read more »
Not the UAS! I was at Benson recently, where Oxford UAS is. It’s literally a container with a sign on it next to a shed for helicopter blades. I agree, crew numbers need to go up before any major expansion of the fleet is planned.
👍Certainly!
In fairness, although I wouldn’t be in favour of installing NSM on them, the B2 Rivers do have a combat management suite, enhanced fire fighting, bulkheads, armoured magazine stores etc similar to a higher end combatant. I agree with you about adding air defence ability to them.
And the echo and
Enterprise could too. The hydrographic towed array of Rn. survey ships is a subject oft not discussed with the retiring of the echo and enterprise we might have missed a big opportunity to see wh an innovative body like the royal navy can do. A gun a few ASW torpedo maybe a rolling airframe missile might show that we can think outside the box and do,that other nations can’t
Sounds spot on to me 👍 better than Turkish scrap metal 🇬🇧
So would a 76mm a couple more 30mm aft of the bridge wings would be a good idea, the Thais have done just that and are putting harpoon aft of the funnel.
Interestingly the evidence base is that the 57mm is a more effectively medium gun than the 76mm in most respects due to in the main it’s very high rate of fire…it will as a crude measure put more high explosives down the threat axis than a 76… personally would give the rivers a 40mm or at best a 57mm to give some form of effective anti air capability…..and improved anti surface capability as well…the really of the modern world is you never know when someone with throw a cheap drone at you. So even a constabulary vessel needs an air… Read more »
Yes, even with smaller shell the “explosive per minute” is still higher than 76mm. Granted, it could probably put down more explosive in a minute than a 14in gun due to higher rpm, but heigh ho
How would a River see over the horizon or is it all data linked to what though??
👍
Puma UAV?
Just saw abc Rodney reply
Have any actually been fitted to a UK warship yet? Only one type 23 has actually been fitted with mounting racks, why not more, or Type 45s?
Somerset has them fitted. She’ll trial them and then another 10 vessels will get them fitted.
I’ve not seen any photos of Somerset with missiles onboard, just empty racks
Yesterday, look at Navy lookout twitter
Thanks.
According to an article in War Zone, HMS Somerset has NSM loaded. It seems likely, given that it has had the mounting racks for a while and also recently visited Norway, where the NSM is made. It was speculated at the time that NSM would be loaded there.
But we are in a heightened state of tension so the deployable state of munitions won’t be announced without good reason.
Somerset does have NSM fitted and is trialing them. There will prolly be Norwegian technicians aboard making sure everthing is properly integrated etc. Once the RN is happy, expect a fairly rapid deployment on other assets
That feels likely.
It is an up arming that is very useful and can be done very fast.
👍
Does anyone know if these will be fitted to other ships such as the Type 31 once the Type 23’s are retired?
You would like to think so…..
The Type 31s are getting VLS cells compatible with the in development FC/ASW system (aka Spear 5), which is the British/French/Italian joint development to eventually replace Storm Shadow, Exocet, and Harpoon missiles. So Type 31 isn’t getting NSM, but it is getting an anti-ship missile capability.
Depends on if they dump the system after Fcasw is introduced. Would have 5 sets lying around.
The anti shipping element of FC/CASW is not due until 2034/35 so we have a decade before it’s an option…all the T31s will be long commissioned by then.
I doubt that very much.
11 sets is 5 for T31 and 6 for T45.
As you say T31 will have AShM in some form but I suspect that NSM will be part of the mixed load out.
It would be very likely that type 31 will get NSM..there is clearly a very good reason the navy purchase 11 sets..one each for the five T31s and T45s.. we don’t yet know how many MK41 launchers the T31s will get…there is a very good chance they will have a mix of CAMM cold launch silos ( because they are cheap and why not) the deck mounded NSM ( again kit is owned so why not) and a number of MK 41 launchers ( I would bet 24)…FC/ASW anti shipping missiles will not be ready until 2034/35 and so the… Read more »
Don’t see why not
NSM is intended to be an interim solution until FCASW comes along (should be 2028) to equip the new frigates. Officially there’s no plan for what will happen to NSM after that but it seems likely some sets will be moved to T-31 (or even T-32 if that actually goes ahead).
Since T-45 isn’t getting Mk 41 they’ll almost certainly keep their NSM until they retire in the late 2030s, what Type 83 will get is entirely undecided at this point.
I believe this was the plan, to see 5 sets fitted to the Type 31s but following the plan to fit Mk 41 VLS on the ships, there may not be space for the NSM launchers. Although I’ve can only wait as we’ve yet to see what the Mk 41 layout will be on the T31 (only rough concepts thus far).
Personally I fell that to save money they may limit the VLS on the T31 to 8-16 cells and leave space for the NSM launchers; if they can be shielded from the launch exhausts.
Great to see the roll out commence. Arguably making Somerset the most powerful conventional vessel in the fleet today 😉..close race with Astute/ Tomahawk/ Spearfish combination.
Not even close to Astute unless it’s forced to fight on the surface and maybe not even then. Tomahawk V is a pretty good ASM with exceptional range.
As part of the Tomahawk recertification package, all our BLK IV missiles are being upgraded to BLK V standard from 2024 onwards. However, what is not clear is whether or not they are basic BLK V missiles or BLK Va or Vb. BLK Va is the maritime strike version.
You would like to think that we might get some of all three versions, but as things stand, things are still unclear.
What’s the difference between V and VB?
American mark systems make no sense to me. At least with the Spitfire it went up in order
The Blk V has improved GPS and in flt terrain following, while the Blk Vb has a new warhead designed against hardened targets I believe.
Take your point but it should be noted the Spitfire mark system understandably in the circumstances wasn’t totally clear, it went from Roman to standard numerals late on and some ostensibly higher marks came in as temp mash up solutions before their lower marked real successors (that often never really replaced them) the MkIX being one such ‘temporary solution’ that became the most built and long lasting of the lot. Then you had bubble canopied Spits with lower Marks than some with Malcolm hoods and less modified airframes. Then of course you had the Recon versions and Seafires the latter… Read more »
Fair enough
At least the Spitfire wasn’t under modern MOD, then we’d have the mk 98a block VII to contend with
How about reinstating the Banff strike wing? A bunch of Mosquitos with RP-3 rockets and the occasional 6 pounder shell would keep the Russians out of the North Sea no problem
I alway thought the RN submarine service never did much like ASMs that took up space for a heavyweight torpedo…I would imagine if they are upgrading to anything they will go to BLk Vb with the joint multiple effects warhead for better navel strike capabilities…
I dont think that it was ever about ‘not liking ASMs’, although they did obviously take up space in the ‘bomb shop’ in lieu of torpedoes. It has more to do with receiving targeting information. Back in the ‘sub-harpoon’ days where our initial versions had a range of 70 nm or so, we would receive our target data from either Nimrods or Helicopters. This of course meant sticking a mast up and being in comms with said asset for the duration of the serial until a missile was launched. Not something a SSN really wants to do. Come to think… Read more »
Cheers deep that’s interesting, so essentially with SSNs the kill chain for ASMs was just to much of a compromise to potential detection compared to sneaking up and using a heavyweight torpedo ?
Essentially yes, especially when combined with the limitations of early ASM technology and very tight rules of engagement if merchant shipping is potentially in the vicinity.
We need a few dozen more. It’s all about numbers of missiles and having reserves of smart munitions. Key learning from Ukraine war.
If the NSM can fit into strike length MK41 VLS tubes then we should be ordering lots more.
Or the longer range LRASM based on tomahawk.
NSM isnt VLS launched, and were def not getting Lrasm, were making our own missile rn.
Also there may only be 11 Sets/racks, but there will be a reserve of missiles on top of that, its an interim weapon till Fcasw. Also alot of navies are picking it up so if a war did break out its not in short supply anyway.
The missiles for Somerset and two other ships are being supplied from the Royal Norwegian Navy’s existing stock, i.e. they are not newly manufactured by Kongsberg for the UK. Effectively they are part of Norway’s disproportionately large contribution supporting Ukraine. Note that the RN declared IOC with NSM today – 19 December.
Sadly the NSM in its current form cannot be fired from a Mk41 VLS cell. However, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) which is developed from the NSM, has been fired from the Mk41. Even when surface launched, the JSM has more range and comes with a bigger warhead, even though both missiles share the same volume. We may see potential JSM being fitted to the VLS cells of T26 and T31, as an interim AShM/SSM, before FCASW comes into service. Though both classes of ship, still have space to mount 8 NSM canister launchers. The bigger picture though is that… Read more »
You forgot one the Norwegians are also paying to integrate it on their P8’s.
These look excellent. However after watching a simulation of a battle with Chinese vessels. It is apparent that the replacement for the type 45s will likely need more launchers added. Now a caveat is that the naval strike missile was only modelled on known attributes and did not have evasive manoeuvres programmed in. However it was clear that the UK ships had far better equipment than the modern Chinese vessels but the sheer number of missiles that the Chinese ships carry was a game changer. It took at least 5 of their air defence missiles to take out each naval… Read more »
Yes, the 16 planned Type 055’s on paper are quite impressive. I would hope the future T83 will be designed with them in mind.
I think they will indeed be, it’s no coincidence that Bae has been promoted up missiled versions of the T-26 both for Australia and potentially the T-45 replacement. The fact they are so conscious of matching or exceeding competitors shows which way their thinking is going for future designs, the MoD if there is one will likely be the moderator of such moves I suspect.
I hope BAE don’t use VLS-ed up T26 for T83. The cost would be similar to that of a cruiser due to development cost of a light enough radar. T26 Hunter class has topweight issues anyway and CEAFAR, however good, is not enough for the primary air defence of a carrier group.
Quantity has always been very relevant, something which our military planning has completely forgotten.
Yup…. War is a game of numbers, always has been.
Bur if you haven’t got the capability. The numbers become pointless.
it’s numbers of everything mate, that includes hardware/capability. Just look at Ukraine and the British Intel data of losses.
But the money and people are not going to be plucked out of thin air. Plenty of nations have impressive on paper numbers. But when push comes to shove. If they don’t have the capability, they are told to stay at home. If NATO was fully engaged in Ukraine, which would then mean we are at full-scale war with Russia, then the conflict would look very different. NATO airpower would have made a huge impact alone.
That’s why we have SSN’s. if a type 055 gets anywhere near a T45 to use missiles then something went wrong.
But, you are forgetting that we only have 6 SSN’s (7 at a push soon) and the PLAN will have 16 Type 055’s and we will probably only have a maximum of 3 out on patrol at any one time….. Only one might be in the SCS with a CSG. Add the PLAN’s Frigate’s, Subs and ACC’s and the other 300 or so assets into the equation and your solitary T45 and Astute will be somewhat up against it. If you think some sort of Alliance of EU and USA fleets will be able to counter the threat then fair… Read more »
The issue is not the actual presence of an Astute but the treat of it. Not even the Chinese will send an air defence cruiser into a region known, due to association with CSG, to have one of (if not the) world’s quietest and most effective fighting vehicles in.
The Plan also have 9 active Nuclear attack SSN’s and a whole bunch of conventional subs and it is their own region don’t forget.
Have you ever looked at the size of force South Korea, Japan and Australia have between them ? They actually have as many subs as China ! Japan has 23 on their own and all are modern.
Blimey didn’t know that 🤔
They and South Korea arguably also have the best Frigates/Destroyers in the World certainly some of the most well armed with missile numbers competitive with the Chinese and likely higher quality of weapon and sensor combination.
Yes, I’m fully aware thanks, If you look at my answer, it was more in reply to Jim’s specific mention of “a type 055 and a type 45”. The South Korean, Australian and Japanese boats are all conventionally powered, It will remain to be seen just how effective they would be. I hope we never get to find out.
Well, if you match up Japan, Australia and Korea with the PLAN SSK fleet, that leaves the RN and USN with the world’s best SSNs to guard carrier groups. Most Chinese sub tech is supposed to be reverse engineered so we can probably assume 1v1 superiority
Absolutely.
What happens if that Sub is chasing a few Chinese subs or trying to avoid a few? Relying on a Sub is a bad idea, ideally you are correct but you need to be able to protect yourself in the event the sub is busy or worse… sunk…
RN doctrine seems to be to rely on SSN material superiority to deter any noisy Chinese sub silly enough to make noise within 200 miles of a CSG. The ‘force in being’ concept applies here; as the CCP don’t know where the sub is or isn’t, it could be anywhere and so nowhere is safe.
The additional 24 CAMMs being added to type 45 which then allows for all 48 asters to be the aster 30 variant should somewhat help in that scenario of missile attrition. (Technically they could have added 16 mk41s instead with quad packed CAMM or duel packed CAMM-MR which would have given a huge number of missiles but of course that isn’t happening because of the cost)
Grim Reapers DCS I think you’re on about, I watched the same video a couple days ago.
For some reason they had CAMM engaging the hypersonics instead of the Aster which cost the Brits a T45 destroyer..
They run fun scenarios though which is a great watch
I thought I read somewhere that a longer range version of NSM was being developed.
Kongsberg and Diehl are planning a supersonic successor to NSM. I’ve not seen a forecasted date yet though. It will be a direct competitor to FCASW.
I believe the initial missiles are from Norwegian stockpiles and comprise older baseline missiles (still good and allow for quick delivery). The majority of the missiles are expected to comprise of the newer Block 1A missiles also being built for Norway and Germany.
Well looks like one of Ben Wallace’s surprises has landed just in time for Xmas. We are acquiring 11 sets of NSM which is sufficient to equip all our “available” surface combat warships. Yep I wish it was more but it is only a stop gap until the Anglo- French (FC/ASW) enter service in 2028 (if that is on time 🤞🏻🤣). But if Santa wants to add an extra pressie I’ll throw you all a curve ball to think about and it involves joined up cross service thinking. I’d actually buy 3 or 4 Truck Mounted Coastal Defence batteries rather… Read more »
Ha… I love it when someone else goes off on one !!!! Absolutely agree with you mate 100%, quite why anyone would sail a valuable asset in the Red Sea ATM without some kind of self defence Weaponry is beyond me…. Time to send a few Q Ships I think.
Can anyone tell us what is the cost of fitting sea giraffe radar to the River 2s? That would be a massive upgrade and very useful in way out places. They have a surprisingly capable action control fit already and are certainly low level combat capable vessels. How much would any of this cost?
The Philippines has asked the US to help them purchase two Sea Giraffe Radars, maintenance and training support for $25M. Clearly buying in bulk would drop the overall purchase price. This price does not include the installation costs though. I think for just the fit on the eight B2 Rivers. You won’t be getting much change out of $250M. Including Sea Giraffe on the B2’s especially. Would dramatically increase the ship’s potential. Especially for air defence. As it would mean at the most basic level, a gun based remotely controlled weapon system can be directly linked to the Giraffe radar.… Read more »
Not in the Caribbean, Falklands nor West Africa they aren’t ! Which is where the Rivers are based and regardless of what is cracking off elsewhere something has to be tasked to cover those areas.
As for spending £250 million I’d put it towards buying sufficient to equip ships that already have the required Radars.
Artisan is going to be doing the job for the T23 and T26 so you can add both QE’s plus Bulwark and Albion.
Now that’s cost effective.
I accept where you’re coming from, but disagree. At present the B2’s in particular doing the world wide policing role are particularly vulnerable to a drone attack. They have no realistic defence. In this asymmetric world, I would honk the drone is the biggest threat at the moment.
The carriers and LPDs have the benefit of Phalanx, which can not only independently find and track a drone, but will turn it to mincemeat.
I honk so too DB
A Bofors 40mm looks like just about the most effective anti drone weapon available at the moment. It could use EO turrets on a River as any weather reducing the turret’s sight range will also mess up the attacking drone given usually low tech stuff
Just because the Terma radar they have isn’t capable of supporting an NSM or CAAM doesn’t mean it can’t detect drones. And daft as it sounds a 30mm Bushmaster is well able to knock one out.
Scanta will likely detect drones. But they have to be below a certain height. Which is due to the shape of the beam being transmitted. In general terms, the current Scanta radar can only provide range, bearing and object track information in a horizontal plane. On some versions they can also provide inverse synthetic mapping information, that can be overlaid on navigation data. The main issue though, is that it can’t provide target slant range or the elevation angle from the ship to the target. Which are crucial for determining the target’s height above the ground/sea. Tracking the target can… Read more »
30mm is good, I think the B1’s still have the 20mm ?
Millions and probably 4/5 years, there are a lot of countries all re arming for some spooky reason. Which is why I wouldn’t waste the money doing it as T31 & T26 will be IOC before that. Just stick some Manpads and ATGM in the magazine and surprise !
Excellent missiles we need to stock up on. Soldering on with & then gapping ASM capability with the obsolete early model Harpoons was madness.
Hello. Just a question… what makes the Harpoon obsolete?
Hi Tom. What little I know is that the model we used are 1980s vintage & were slated to be withdrawn c5 years ago, but they were retained a bit longer due to the outcry that our warships would be left with no anti ship missiles. The interim NSMs are much newer, stealthy, longer ranged & can be programmed to manouvre unpredictably to help fox anti missile defences. The long awaited Anglo-french anti ship missile we’re developing may not be ready until 2030 or so.
Some still use Harpoon but I think mainly later updated versions.
Thanks for that Frank.
Useful background info:
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/dsei-2023/2023/09/dsei-2023-kongsberg-increasing-nsm-production-capacity/
and
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/uk-royal-navy-declares-ioc-with-naval-strike-missile/
Is it usable in a mk41 VLS system? If so, could we not keep them beyond the introduction of FCAW?
Why use a MK41 ? They work perfectly well containerised just like everyone else does.
NSM is not capable of VLS Launch,Kongsberg were working on a variant of the Air Launched JSM Missile for the US Navy ( JSM-VL ) but it is unclear if that has progressed.
No, see above:
Just a thought, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about other than it involves pretty advanced weapons systems etc. I maybe a bit naive but should this discussion be in this open forum? I am supposing that all all this information is in the public domain and consequently available? Please excuse if I am being too naive. Atb Chris
Well at least we have something a bit more effective than harsh words to toss at the enemy.
Hopefully the government will wake up and get some more and hulls to put them on.
This government won’t increase defence spending to allow it. All eyes on the next one, most probably under Labour. I won’t hold my breath there either.
Given the funding shortfall, it will be a miracle if all current projects get over the line as planned.
More here
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/uk-royal-navy-declares-ioc-with-naval-strike-missile/
At least it is an improvement on what the RN has at the moment and a good stop gap until FCAW comes on line. When the future anti ship/land attack missile is available I would like to see the T31s getting NSM, possibly 4 quad sets rather than the standard 2 given 16 missiles per T31. Combined with the 32 Mk41 cells could make the T31s a very hard hitting surface/ anti air combat vessel. I would still like to see some containerised CAPTAS systems bought possibly 8 sets. With CAPTAS being able to deploy from two 20ft containers 8… Read more »
Apparently not F35, these will still rely on SPEAR 3 and Paveway IV for attack. Probably due to issues with ramp launch and vertical recovery (though SRVL might change that).
I assume it will be 8 per ship two quad launchers. It would be good if each ship had 16 missiles. Given the improvements in air defence a few more would be good.
At least we will no longer have the farce of RN ships facing off against Russian ships without any anti-ship weapones.
We need to protect the UK first and foremost.