HMS Portland, a Type 23 Frigate, has been fitted with a replacement for the ageing Harpoon missile – the anti-ship and land-attack ‘Naval Strike Missile’.
The Naval Strike Missile is an anti-ship and land-attack missile developed by the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.
#HMSPortland successfully embarked 8 Naval Strike Missiles, restoring our Anti-Surface capability. This is a big step forward in ensuring we are Global, Modern and Ready and further strengthens partnerships with our NATO allies @KOGDefence š³š“š #RoyalNavy #WeAreNATO pic.twitter.com/ijUpZ8nmzx
ā HMS Portland (@HMSPortland) December 12, 2024
Developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA), the NSM can target both maritime and land threats. The NSM is distinguished by its airframe design and a high thrust-to-weight ratio, granting it superior manoeuvrability. It operates passively and has demonstrated exceptional sea-skimming capabilities and advanced terminal manoeuvres to elude enemy air defences.
A key feature of the NSM is its Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR), which accurately identifies and strikes the intended target, whether at sea or on land.
Technical specifications of the NSM include a high subsonic speed, a weight of 407 kg (897 lbs), a length of 3.96 m (156 inches), and a range of over 185 km (100 nm). The missile was originally named Nytt sjĆømĆ„lsmissil in Norwegian, translating to “New sea target missile”, and was later marketed in English as the Naval Strike Missile.
Incorporating advanced composite materials, the NSM is designed with stealth capabilities in mind. The missile’s lightweight structure is paired with a high strength titanium alloy blast/fragmentation warhead from TDW, containing insensitive high-explosive. This warhead is activated by a void-sensing Programmable Intelligent Multi-Purpose Fuze, designed to enhance its efficacy against hard targets.
The NSM’s flight characteristics allow it to traverse over landmasses, stay low over the sea, and perform unpredictable manoeuvres in its terminal phase, complicating interception efforts. The missile’s capability to engage both sea and land targets is enhanced by its imaging infrared (IIR) seeker and an onboard target database.
With the UK’s selection of the NSM, it joins several other nations, including Norway, Poland, Malaysia, Germany, the USA, Japan, Romania, Canada, Australia, and Spain, in deploying this missile system.
The Royal Navy will outfit the Naval Strike Missile to a total of eleven Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers in collaboration with the Norwegian government.
Specifications
- Speed: 0.7 ā 0.9 Mach
- Weight: 407 kg (897 lbs)
- Length: 3.96 m (156 inches)
- Multi-mission: Sea and land targets
- Range: >100 nm
The builders, Kongsberg, said in a press release in November.
“The collaboration will result in more ships equipped with the highly sophisticatedĀ Naval Strike Missiles which in turn will contribute in enhancing the security in our common areas of interest. Replacing the Harpoon surface-to-surface weapon, due to go out of service in 2023, the world-class anti-ship missile will be ready for operations onboard the first Royal Navy vessel in a little over 12 months.”
About time. For once BZ RN.
I hope we have got a good amount these new missiles not just a few and hope for the best
**of**
Good news, now get the rest of the T23s fitted out
Only 5 Type 23s will get NSM; all 6 Type 45s slated to get it for a total of 11 ship sets.
Makes sense. I assume the T23s that will get the NSMs are the ones furthest from end of life /decommisioning.
Aren’t the T23s NSM then going to be transferred to the T31s as they come into service? Why not some extra sets for the T26s too for atop the hangar as with the RAN and RCN T26s to complement the FCASW when that arrives?
It’s not a huge overwhelming capability as only 8 missiles carried per set but it’s an important capability to retain.
Let’s hope some reloads are included with the 11 sets installed.
Useful stand off land attack capability
That’s 2 ships in 2 years.. how long for the remaining 9? At pace……. š§
Quote from Navy Lookout:
“The addition of the new missiles is more complex than just bolting on new cradles.
The old Harpoon power room has to be gutted and there are cable runs to be put in place
which required the operations room deck to be taken up to fit the wiring for the new NSM console.”
A slither of good news in lethality – I remember one or 2 āopinion formersā trying to justify why the RN didnāt need these weapons.
I think you will find that most of those āopinion formersā actually said that a long range heavyweight Antiship missile was less of a priority than a fixed wing ASuW missile and an ASuW missile for the small ship flight..that also those same āopinion formersā also supported RN surface combatants getting a land attack missile..so a bit more nuanced of a discussion than you suggested.
Personally my view is and aways has been.
1) I support wholeheartedly the fact the RN escorts are getting NSM..but mainly because it provides them with a long range land attack option,which means that they are a great deterrent to bad guys. As the key role of our armed forces is to deter aggression, a land attack option is a need to have.
2) a heavy weight anti-ship missile on the escorts is a like to have on escorts but not a need to have.
Why is a heavyweight anti ship missile only a like to haveā¦
1) almost all ship kills/mission kills from anti missiles have been via air launches missiles, most of these air launched missile kills have been via RN small ship fights, using light air launched missiles. There have been a very large number of surface vessels killed by air launched missiles.
2) since WW2 only a small number of ship launched anti ship missiles have been launched and almost all of these small numbers have been from small short range missile boats in ambushā¦I can only find evidence of 2 large surface combatants ever launching anti ship missile in anger..and one of these actually got its kill from using light weight duel purpose AAW missiles ( its follow-up shot with harpoon missedā¦ true fact heavyweight ship launched anti ship missiles have killed more holiday homes than surface ships ).
3) There has been no instances ever of ships launching long range Antiship missiles in combat at other surface vessels beyond the radar horizon..single surface combatants getting a kill chain beyond radar range is still not something thatās been done in combat. So the need is a good ASuW option within the radar horizon.
4) RN vessels already had a highly effective set of ASuW weapons in that CAMM is a perfectly awful weapon for another ship to manage..each CAMM armed ship is actually a bit of a ASuW handful..range of 25Km + and a Mach 3+ speed. Means itās the perfect shoot first kill first ASuW weapon for any engagement within radar range ( and all single surface combatant engagements will likely be in the radar horizon). Your CAMM volley will hit a surface target 25kms away in 23 seconds..a heavyweight anti ship missile will take close to 2 mins. Yes itās got a light warhead. But a 100kg missile travelling at 2300miles an hour delivers a huge amount of kinetic energy before you bring in the warhead ( infact it delivers more energy than a Second World War 8inch AP shell). It also has a solid propellant that burns to the very last, this means any target will get the full kinetic energy+ load of rocket fuel+ frag warhead. Any ship hit by a CAMM in the machine space is a mobility kill..
Great post. There mayn’t be the kill history to now but our potential adversaries have them in huge quantities and they’ll use them as will our allies. The RAN here has just added TLAM and NSM to its Hobart’s AAW Destroyers, Hunter T26s will likely have the same. The new RAN light frigates being proposed have 8 to 16 AShMs which could be over the top but the perceived threat from China’s navy must be actually that serious. And JSM for RAAF F35A and P8s. Is there any update on what AShM the RAFs P8 might carry and the F35Bs Spear 3 are still some years away so why no interim like JSM?
Has HMS Somerset even fired a NSM yet in trials? She has had them fitted for some time now and to be fair, sheās had a lot of technical issues that needed to be urgently addressed but curious how that impacted/impacts IOC for NSM. Is this part of the reason for the slow āat paceā for the rest of the Type 23s?