Kongsberg NSM - which way is up?

This is rather unexpected....

NSM is smashing it out of the park at present, JSM is due to arrive soon...no real competitor to either on the horizon either...then...

"While the missile is currently dubbed FNSM, Kongsberg told Shephard the cooperation covered a 'new missile concept' and would not influence the roadmap for development of the existing Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Joint Strike Missile (JSM)."

Is it going to be substantially larger? Longer ranged? Is it an FCASW/LRASM competitor? Replacement of Taurus KEPD350?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1661715355545337857
View: https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1661715355545337857
 
timmymagic said:
This is rather unexpected....

NSM is smashing it out of the park at present, JSM is due to arrive soon...no real competitor to either on the horizon either...then...

"While the missile is currently dubbed FNSM, Kongsberg told Shephard the cooperation covered a 'new missile concept' and would not influence the roadmap for development of the existing Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Joint Strike Missile (JSM)."

Is it going to be substantially larger? Longer ranged? Is it an FCASW/LRASM competitor? Replacement of Taurus KEPD350?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1661715355545337857
View: https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1661715355545337857
Click to expand...
Could be something derived from THOR-ER.
 
timmymagic said:
Is it going to be substantially larger? Longer ranged? Is it an FCASW/LRASM competitor? Replacement of Taurus KEPD350?
Click to expand...
i think in this context it is informative to look at the ambitious plans Germany had for the RBS15 after it was selected over the NSM for the K130 corvettes. To improve its land attack capabilities a future version was supposed to be fitted with a dual-mode IR/RF seeker developed by Diehl BGT. Because of financial constraints these plans were dropped and the only upgrades the RBS15 received were a more economic turbojet, more fuel and a new navigation system with GPS to make it land attack capable.
For the NSM or FNSM the situation is different because its German partner is MBDA, who are already involved in the NSM warhead. So if the FNSM is supposed to be developed by Kongsberg and MBDA, a dual-mode seeker does not seem very likely because in Germany this capabilty is concentrated at Diehl BGT. So a realistic scenario would be a land/sea dual-purpose warhead (MBDA/TDW), an IR-Seeker with improved land attack capability (Kongsberg), a more efficient engine (Safran) and maybe a new larger booster (MBDA/Bayern-Chemie).
Its not impossible that we see Diehl BGT join the development with a new seeker, however personally i find it unlikely considering the financial constraints.
I just hope that it carries over the VLS compatibility from the JSM. The German Navy seems to care very little about that.
It will also be interesting to see if the JSM (or FNSM) is also ordered for the F-35, the LRSAM was not yet finally confirmed.
 

Attachments

  • RBS15Mk3DualMode.jpg
    RBS15Mk3DualMode.jpg
    4.6 MB · Views: 12
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
This is rather unexpected....

NSM is smashing it out of the park at present, JSM is due to arrive soon...no real competitor to either on the horizon either...then...

"While the missile is currently dubbed FNSM, Kongsberg told Shephard the cooperation covered a 'new missile concept' and would not influence the roadmap for development of the existing Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Joint Strike Missile (JSM)."

Is it going to be substantially larger? Longer ranged? Is it an FCASW/LRASM competitor? Replacement of Taurus KEPD350?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1661715355545337857
View: https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1661715355545337857
Click to expand...
Maybe other new Features like RF warn systems ( probaly wrong name) will also come and it will become a standard cruise missile for all parts of the bundeswehr and the norwegian army. Maybe even launched from an MLRS who knows but many things are possible.
 
kqcke for you said:
Maybe even launched from an MLRS who knows but many things are possible.
Click to expand...
Or something smaller:

StrikeMaster-concept-rendering-e1646607974463.jpg


 
Future NSM has been a joint Norwegian-German program since 2021. It's not clear to me whether it's a clean sheet or just the next iteration of product-improved NSM.

www.bmvg.de

Umfangreiche Beschaffungen für die Deutsche Marine

Modernisierung der Deutschen Marine: Neue U-Boote, Betriebsstoffversorger und Flottendienstboote. Lesen Sie hier mehr dazu.
www.bmvg.de www.bmvg.de
 
TomS said:
kqcke for you said:
Something like that would also go but a canister for MRLS or Puls could also be an interresting Option for some countrys.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you could actually fit two NSM in a pod compatible with MLRS or Puls, but apparently you can?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663524334013431813
View: https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1663524334013431813?t=vPwRTvLh2clNdEvD2R7cbA&s=19
Click to expand...
Puls has more theoretical space so there its possible but MLRS? Well it could work but should also use close to the full volume of a pod
 
We don't seem to have a separate JSM thread (and I don't particularly think one is warranted). The USAF is proposing buying 48 JSMs in their 2024 budget. I would think the USAF, USN, and USMC would be doubling down on JSM purchases and production. There are copious platforms to fire it from for all services, and the weight class would be perfect for F-18 and internal carriage for the F-35 (with optional external stores). USAF could have a non-bomber option for AShMs. The USM could greatly leverage its F-35Bs as pop up strike platforms from austere bases. And the USN could probably attach a lot of them to F-18s. At <1000lbs, it should fit 2x on a BRU-32 and also on the outer most pylons. Barring separation issues and sacrificing drop tanks, you might possibly load ten. It would seem to be a huge enable for all services in the IndoPacific.
 
Josh_TN said:
We don't seem to have a separate JSM thread (and I don't particularly think one is warranted). The USAF is proposing buying 48 JSMs in their 2024 budget. I would think the USAF, USN, and USMC would be doubling down on JSM purchases and production. There are copious platforms to fire it from for all services, and the weight class would be perfect for F-18 and internal carriage for the F-35 (with optional external stores). USAF could have a non-bomber option for AShMs. The USM could greatly leverage its F-35Bs as pop up strike platforms from austere bases. And the USN could probably attach a lot of them to F-18s. At <1000lbs, it should fit 2x on a BRU-32 and also on the outer most pylons. Barring separation issues and sacrificing drop tanks, you might possibly load ten. It would seem to be a huge enable for all services in the IndoPacific.
Click to expand...
Nah i think they won't drop the tanks or all so i think 6-8 is more realistic and good enough
 
kqcke for you said:
Nah i think they won't drop the tanks or all so i think 6-8 is more realistic and good enough
Click to expand...
Agree, but if you could fit 6 with tanks that would be a big leg up over four Harpoons/LRASM without. Or just two. Not sure if outer pylon or double BRU-32 is possible but it seems within weight limits.
 
FWIW, the fit checks Boeing did with JSM on the Super Hornet only showed single carriage on BRU-32, not the twin BRU-55. That probably leans toward a max of six missiles (the fit checks only showed the inner four pylons, though)

1687972791082.png
OTOH, there was an operational load with ten 1000-lb JDAM, and JSM is in that weight class (and even a bit narrower). Works if you have tanker support, I guess.


1687972488199.png
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
FWIW, the fit checks Boeing did with JSM on the Super Hornet only showed single carriage on BRU-32, not the twin BRU-55. That probably leans toward a max of six missiles (the fit checks only showed the inner four pylons, though)

View attachment 702569
OTOH, there was an operational load with ten 1000-lb JDAM, and JSM is in that weight class (and even a bit narrower). Works if you have tanker support, I guess.


View attachment 702568
Click to expand...

The tail fins or just aerodynamics of store in general might make for separation issues outside of total weight and volume but is seems worth looking into if no one has run the numbers yet. If it even added another pair on the outside pylon it seems worth a buy to me, especially since LRASM purchases have been rather anemic despite how active the AGM-158 line is. I’ve never understood if that was a price or component bottleneck.

EDIT: JSM seems like it is about a 1-2 inches bigger in diameter compared to mk82.
 
Josh_TN said:
EDIT: JSM seems like it is about a 1-2 inches bigger in diameter compared to mk82.
Click to expand...

Those are GBU-32s (1000-lb Mk 83 warheads). With JDAM fins, the width is supposedly 498mm, smaller than the 480mm reported for JSM.

Edit: As you say, specific aero considerations could have an impact. And the fact that the fit check doesn't show a twin-store config argues pretty hard against this idea.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
EDIT: JSM seems like it is about a 1-2 inches bigger in diameter compared to mk82.
Click to expand...

Those are GBU-32s (1000-lb Mk 83 warheads). With JDAM fins, the width is supposedly 498mm, smaller than the 480mm reported for JSM.

Edit: As you say, specific aero considerations could have an impact. And the fact that the fit check doesn't show a twin-store config argues pretty hard against this idea.
Click to expand...

Right, but I've seen Mk82's loaded in that configuration as well. So I think the capacity may be 1000lbs weight wise but the diameter can be more than Mk83's 14", up to mk82's 18". JSM is 19" x 20". So right ballpark, but you'd need to model the separation and if favorable, actually test it.

Though far as I know the USN has no interest in buying it anyway. I'm hoping that the future MALD-N (assuming it is purchased) has a mode where it can fake being a sea skimmer; that could buy you volume of fire without actually having to pay for real AShMs in weight or treasure. That should definitely fit anywhere on an F-18, possibly even the fuselage hard points if separation was favorable. They weigh less than a AIM-120.
 
The NSM is having a lot of success in the marketplace.

The missile seems well regarded.

I'm a bit surprised they haven't come up with a longer ranged variant.
 
Josh_TN said:
Googling seems to indicate it is the Mk83 1000lb that has the oddball diameter, with Mk82/84 differing in length not width.
Click to expand...

The Mk 80 Aero shape scales pretty directly (they're all the same shape, just scaled up for weight). But the JDAM kits are slightly different. I'm using the dimensions on the USAF fact sheet for JDAM:

www.af.mil

Joint Direct Attack Munition GBU- 31/32/38

The Joint Direct Attack Munition is a guidance tail kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather "smart" munitions.
www.af.mil

Wingspan:
GBU-31: 25 inches (63.5 centimeters);
GBU-32: 19.6 inches (49.8 centimeters);
GBU-38: 14 inches (35.6 centimeters)
 
timmymagic said:
Does anyone actually know if its going to be integrated to external pylons on F-35 as part of this integration effort? Apart from the external pylon for AIM-9X and ASRAAM there seems to be little planned at present for powered weapons from the inner and mid wing external pylons on F-35.
Click to expand...

Looks like they fit tested JSM on F-35 external pylons back in 2012-13, so it seems likely that they are planning both internal and external carriage.

theaviationist.com

Photo shows F-35A fitted with two externally mounted Joint Strike Missiles

Last week the Norwegian Crown Prince visited Lockheed Martin’s Ft Worth facility as part of an effort to promote Norwegian industry within the
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com
 
TomS said:
Looks like they fit tested JSM on F-35 external pylons back in 2012-13, so it seems likely that they are planning both internal and external carriage.
Click to expand...
A lot has changed since then though...particularly in the weapons integration space for F-35. And although I know the Norwegian's drove a hard bargain on F-35/JSM integration as part of their negotiations to purchase F-35, Kongsberg have shown little interest in speculative integration efforts where there are no confirmed customers willing to pay up front (see P-8/JSM integration and helos/NSM integration). Did integration for F-35 and JSM genuinely cover all models including B and C. A fit check is a very cheap and low/no risk activity.
 
On the other hand, the USAF is asking congress to buy 48 JSM in the next fiscal year, so that might indicate a major customer is forthcoming.
 
Jimmo952 said:
The NSM is having a lot of success in the marketplace.

The missile seems well regarded.

I'm a bit surprised they haven't come up with a longer ranged variant.
Click to expand...
Well it range is not bad but limited on how you launch it. Tought the new Norwegian/german one could be with longer range than the ones we have
 
Josh_TN said:
On the other hand, the USAF is asking congress to buy 48 JSM in the next fiscal year, so that might indicate a major customer is forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Customer seems to be USAF -- it's not just 48 in FY 24, it's almost 270 over the FYDP.

Air Force to procure 268 Joint Strike Missiles over five years | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force plans to buy 268 Norwegian-made Joint Strike Missiles over the next five years, according to a notice posted Wednesday.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com

The JSM is complementary to the service’s ammunition capabilities and will work as a “bridge” until more Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles can be procured, Maj. Gen. Mike Greiner, deputy assistant secretary for budget, told reporters in a briefing Friday.
Click to expand...

So, it's interesting to see JSM offered as gap-filler for more LRASM. First, this suggests that there's a bottleneck somewhere in LRASM production specific to that version and not JASSM, which as we know is cranking out lots of missiles. That may also explain the weird USN procurements of JASSMs with some sort of antiship capacity that are not LRASM. Second, it raises questions questions about platform. LRASM has thus far gone mainly to bombers, and not in sufficient numbers to fully load them up for many sorties. F-35 is/was also supposed to get LRASM, but possibly the idea now is for F-35 to get JSM in the near-term and let the bombers take all the available LRASM, at least for the time being.

Probably related is the LM plan to build a second line for JASSM/LRASM to double its output. This article says that the JASSM/LRASM split is entirely down to customer demand, but there must be some intense "discussions'" between communities about who gets what fraction of a constrained output.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Martin Looks to Boost LRASM Production as US Rushes to Buy Anti-Ship Weapons | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lockheed Martin has opened a second production line to produce two of the Pentagon’s most in-demand needed weapons: the LRASM and the JASSM-ER
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

LRASMs and JASSMs have many common components and are made on the same production lines. “As the missiles come down the production line some are earmarked as LRASM, some are earmarked as JASSM,” DeScisciolo said. “They’re all sequenced through based on the demand of the customer.”
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
So, it's interesting to see JSM offered as gap-filler for more LRASM. First, this suggests that there's a bottleneck somewhere in LRASM production specific to that version and not JASSM, which as we know is cranking out lots of missiles. That may also explain the weird USN procurements of JASSMs with some sort of antiship capacity that are not LRASM.
Click to expand...

The LRASM purchases do seem incredibly marginal for a line that can produce hundreds of AGM-158s a year. They are a lot more expensive than basic AGM-158B, but given the move to purchase 270 JSM (thanks for that by the way) it doesn't seem like money is the limiting factor. It sounds like LRASMs must be almost hand built off an existing AGM-158B or else rely on some very bespoke piece of electronics.

TomS said:
Second, it raises questions questions about platform. LRASM has thus far gone mainly to bombers, and not in sufficient numbers to fully load them up for many sorties. F-35 is/was also supposed to get LRASM, but possibly the idea now is for F-35 to get JSM in the near-term and let the bombers take all the available LRASM, at least for the time being.
Click to expand...

I has assumed F-35 since it is/will be integrated with the type and would give that type a whole new stand off/AShM capability. I can't imagine that the USAF will want to spend time or money integrating it with any other platforms if they can bolt it right to existing F-35s, and 1000lb stores hardly seem to require a strategic bomber. An F-35 could already carry six if RCS was not a consideration.

TomS said:
Probably related is the LM plan to build a second line for JASSM/LRASM to double its output. This article says that the JASSM/LRASM split is entirely down to customer demand, but there must be some intense "discussions'" between communities about who gets what fraction of a constrained output.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Lockheed Martin Looks to Boost LRASM Production as US Rushes to Buy Anti-Ship Weapons | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Lockheed Martin has opened a second production line to produce two of the Pentagon’s most in-demand needed weapons: the LRASM and the JASSM-ER
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com

LRASMs and JASSMs have many common components and are made on the same production lines. “As the missiles come down the production line some are earmarked as LRASM, some are earmarked as JASSM,” DeScisciolo said. “They’re all sequenced through based on the demand of the customer.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Neither the USAF nor the USN have many LRASMs. I think it is like what, 100 and 300 respectively at most? Not even that many physically delivered I think. I think there is still production bottleneck of some kind. If not, then presumably the expansion of the line to 850/year will allow LRASMs to be stamped out at more adequate pace.
 
Jimmo952 said:
kqcke for you said:
Maybe JASSM orders just have the higher priotity right now
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Air Force is buying JSM now to make up for the short fall in LRASM numbers.
Click to expand...
I mean in the production itself. More of them are bought so to get as mutch out as possible more of them are produced. But that is just my guess
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom