Kongsberg NSM - which way is up?

That kind of penetration is really only useful against a subset of land targets. I would not think that relevant for what is nominally an anti ship missile.
 
Josh_TN said:
That kind of penetration is really only useful against a subset of land targets. I would not think that relevant for what is nominally an anti ship missile.
Click to expand...
NSM gets atleast with Block 1A development new Land target capabilitys as for many they don't have mutch more other except there jets which may have a limited cruise missile arsenal. And yes this probaly has more use for JSM but i would guess many countries would take them on NSM too which can be ground /ship or helicopter launched.
 
Last edited:
Italian Navy geting JSM for F-35B....

I do wonder if the UK will eventually go for a small buy...even 50 would address a big capability gap.

www.janes.com

Italian Navy to equip F-35Bs with JSM, SPEAR 3 stand-off weapons

The Italian Navy (Marina Militare Italiana: MMI) is to equip its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) fleet with two stand-off missile types not...
www.janes.com www.janes.com
 
timmymagic said:
Italian Navy geting JSM for F-35B....

I do wonder if the UK will eventually go for a small buy...even 50 would address a big capability gap.

www.janes.com

Italian Navy to equip F-35Bs with JSM, SPEAR 3 stand-off weapons

The Italian Navy (Marina Militare Italiana: MMI) is to equip its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) fleet with two stand-off missile types not...
www.janes.com www.janes.com
Click to expand...

JSM is turning out to be a very successful missile (in terms of sales).
 
Jimmo952 said:
JSM is turning out to be a very successful missile (in terms of sales).
Click to expand...

Yes and No. It took some time to get going (likeNSM). The big prize was obviously the US order. But I'd be surprised if more than 400 are actually on order at present (by 'on order'I mean contracted or in a multi year requirement like the US 268).

The demand for air launched AShM is never enormous, for the simple fact there are only so many targets out there, they're mainly used as a threat rather than actual use. The big orders would come if it got some traction as a land attack munition...
 
timmymagic said:
Yes and No. It took some time to get going (likeNSM). The big prize was obviously the US order. But I'd be surprised if more than 400 are actually on order at present (by 'on order'I mean contracted or in a multi year requirement like the US 268).

The demand for air launched AShM is never enormous, for the simple fact there are only so many targets out there, they're mainly used as a threat rather than actual use. The big orders would come if it got some traction as a land attack munition...
Click to expand...
Tought JSM also is designed for quite good Land Attack capabilitys. Maybe not the most powerful but enough for a lot of targets
 
timmymagic said:
Yes and No. It took some time to get going (likeNSM). The big prize was obviously the US order. But I'd be surprised if more than 400 are actually on order at present (by 'on order'I mean contracted or in a multi year requirement like the US 268).

The demand for air launched AShM is never enormous, for the simple fact there are only so many targets out there, they're mainly used as a threat rather than actual use. The big orders would come if it got some traction as a land attack munition...
Click to expand...

I thought Japan also placed a large order??? Maybe I'm wrong.
 
kqcke for you said:
Tought JSM also is designed for quite good Land Attack capabilitys. Maybe not the most powerful but enough for a lot of targets
Click to expand...

It does. But people buying it to date have been after its anti-ship capabilities, which will never be the largest market. For Land Attack more range and a larger warhead...or just cheaper will probably win out. Perosnally I thought that SOM-J was going to do good business on F-35, but Turkey leaving made that moot.
 
timmymagic said:
They've placed an order. But size isn't clear. US will be biggest customer with a requirement for 268.
Click to expand...

I think long term the USAF has a 500 missile requirement, but I doubt we ever actually get to that. JSM is I think a couple million dollars; it seems likely SiAW will be cheaper if only because it will likely be built at 600/yr at the new facility built for the purpose. And I suspect it will have a secondary AShM capability, given that AGM-88E (and by extension G) already does.

That said there are so many F-35 customers and JSM is the only internal cruise missile town. I suspect there will be a mild but steady market for the missile, particularly dual capability missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
That said there are so many F-35 customers and JSM is the only internal cruise missile town. I suspect there will be a mild but steady market for the missile, particularly dual capability missiles.
Click to expand...

Problem is is that it won't be a particularly good land attack missile. Like I said earlier its not cheap, not very long ranged or has a large warhead. You could hang a far more capable JASSM off a wing pylon and have far greater range and effect for similar cost. The loss of stealth hardly matters when you can fire it off from well outside any AD systems range.

Don't get me wrong I think JSM is a good idea, and I'd hope the UK buys a small number, but I don't think its going to set the world alight.
 
www.navalnews.com

Royal Australian Navy Fires Naval Strike Missile for the First Time - Naval News

HMAS Sydney has fired the Royal Australian Navy's first Naval Strike Missile during a SINKEX as a part of Exercise RIMPAC 2024.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1815689177540841639
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1815689177540841639

www.navalnews.com

Australian Navy Chief Praises Naval Strike Missile Acquisition - Naval News

Naval Strike Missile represents the fastest introduction into service of long range missile capability in our Navy today," Vice Admiral Mark
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
Last edited:
Defense Updates has just uploaded a video about the USS Fitzgerald test-firing an NSM against a target ship:


The U.S. Navy has confirmed that an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer fired a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) during the recent Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises.
Click to expand...
In a statement released on October 23, 2024, the Navy announced, “Among the flurry of fleet activities in the recent (RIMPAC exercise in Hawaii was a milestone that Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division (NSWC PHD) spearheaded — the first demonstration firing of a NSM from a U.S. Navy destroyer.”
Click to expand...
On July 18, the USS Fitzgerald participated in a sinking exercise (SINKEX) as part of the multi-national RIMPAC drills, targeting a decommissioned amphibious ship about 55 miles or 88 km off Kauai. Viewers may note that the warship was photographed with an NSM launcher in a photo taken around June end.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why USS Fitzgerald firing NSM is a big deal ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #USSFitzgerald #usnavy
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:12 INSTALLATION
03:05 NAVAL STRIKE MISSILE
05:36 ANTI SHIP CAPABILITIES IN ARLEIGH BURKE WARSHIPS
08:53 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
New Defense Updates video about the USMC's new NMESIS system:


US Marines from the 3d Marine Littoral Regiment (3d MLR), part of the 3d Marine Division, now have a powerful new weapon in their arsenal. The regiment has received the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), an advanced anti-ship missile system.
Click to expand...
Beyond the menacing name, the NMESIS is designed to boost the Marine Corps’ anti-ship capabilities, particularly for potential conflicts in the Pacific theater, where Marine units would be expected to deploy to several islands throughout the ocean.
Click to expand...
This marks the first deployment of the NMESIS in the field, following years of testing and development. The system will be operated by the regiment's Medium-Range Missile Battery, based in Oahu, Hawaii.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how the US Marine Corps is getting a major capability boost with NMESIS ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #NMESIS #navalstrikemissile
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:59 NEMESIS OVERVIEW
03:56 NAVAL STRIKE MISSILE (NSM)
06:43 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
zjz said:
Anyone knows if there has been any progress on the submarine, torpedo launch version of the NSM/JSM??
Click to expand...

No very recent news. It apparently was going to be developed as a quid pro quo for arming the German and Norwegian 212CD submarines. But then Germany and Norway also announced development of the 3SM Tyrfing ramjet powered missile. Apparently this will complement NSM. We don't know a huge amount about Tyrfing. We know it should be launched from canisters, and perhaps Mk.41 VLS. But we don't know its dimensions to see if it will fit in a 21 inch encapsulated torpedo round.

Truth is we just don't know....212CD is in build at the moment and the first boat should be finished in 2029...but of the 4 'new' weapons posited for it, CHWT, IDAS, Sea Spider and NSM-SL none have actually been developed and fired....its likely it enters service with the Hake HWT only at present.
 
timmymagic said:
No very recent news. It apparently was going to be developed as a quid pro quo for arming the German and Norwegian 212CD submarines. But then Germany and Norway also announced development of the 3SM Tyrfing ramjet powered missile. Apparently this will complement NSM. We don't know a huge amount about Tyrfing. We know it should be launched from canisters, and perhaps Mk.41 VLS. But we don't know its dimensions to see if it will fit in a 21 inch encapsulated torpedo round.

Truth is we just don't know....212CD is in build at the moment and the first boat should be finished in 2029...but of the 4 'new' weapons posited for it, CHWT, IDAS, Sea Spider and NSM-SL none have actually been developed and fired....its likely it enters service with the Hake HWT only at present.
Click to expand...
Just to note Germany just announced development of IDAS funding...
 
In 2023, there was apparently Spanish Navy funding to study integration of NSM-SL into the S-80 submarines. But that doesn't mean the missile exists beyond a paper study.
 
Australian manufactured NSM launcher has been tested for the first time. Australia is making some progress towards domesticating the NSM.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

KONGSBERG successfully test fires NSM from Australian launcher - APDR

KONGSBERG said its first Australian made launcher for the NSM capability has successfully completed a Blast Test Vehicle (BTV) firing
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com
 
Defense Updates has another video out about the deployment by the US of NMESIS to the Phillipines:


The U.S. will deploy its ship-sinking system in the Philippines as part of a military exercise also involving Australia and Japan.The Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, or NMESIS, will be present at Balikatan 2025 exercise this spring.In this context, viewers may note that the US shifted the Typhon missile system to the country in April 2024 as part of the joint Salaknib and Balikatan exercises and the system has since remained in the country with its stay extended indefinitely.
Click to expand...
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who completed an Indo-Pacific tour of Guam, Japan, and the Philippines, announced the deployment at a press conference with Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro. Hegseth stated according to a transcript on the Department of Defense website, “We agreed that the United States will deploy additional advanced capabilities to the Philippines. This includes using the NMESIS anti-ship missile system and highly capable unmanned surface vehicles in exercise Balikatan”
Click to expand...
The annual exercise — Balikatan is Tagalog for “shoulder to shoulder” — is scheduled to run from April 21 to May 9. The U.S. is sending 10,000 troops to participate alongside 6,000 service members from the Philippines, Australia and Japan.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how NMESIS could help the Philippines deter Chinese aggression?
#defenseupdates #usvschina #chinavsphilippines
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:37 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
02:11 NMESIS
03:49 NAVAL STRIKE MISSILE (NSM)
06:16 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the deployment of NMESIS units to the Philippines will be causing some serious heartburn in the senior ranks of the PLA and PLA:N.
 
NMaude said:
I have no doubt that the deployment of NMESIS units to the Philippines will be causing some serious heartburn in the senior ranks of the PLA and PLA:N.
Click to expand...

Might be a bit over-eager; it's a subsonic sea-skimmer with a 130kg warhead. Potent, but there has been 60 years of defensive development against exactly such threats. Deploying a slightly stealthier Harpoon in the 2020s is underwhelming.

By this point of the anti-ship / defensive spiral any AShM should be doing at least Mach 2 terminal with deployable countermeasures. NSM for example will be in the PLAN's CIWS engagement zone for at least four seconds; that's over 300 chances of a hit per gun.

South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all realise this - so why don't other countries? Or i it just a focus on cost?
 
Last edited:
Looking at a map, it seems like the travel time for an NSM against a Russian ship in transit would be short from Denmark. You could practically drop it off a bridge without turning it on.
 
Kiltonge said:
Might be a bit over-eager; it's a subsonic sea-skimmer with a 130kg warhead. Potent, but there has been 60 years of defensive development against exactly such threats. Deploying a slightly stealthier Harpoon in the 2020s is underwhelming.
Click to expand...
Depends on what the detection range is for the NSM. If it can get halfway from the horizon to the target undetected, that's a big deal. Crud, even if you can detect it at the horizon, if it's not detectable by AEW or look-down radars on fighters there's not much the ships can do about it.


Kiltonge said:
By this point of the anti-ship / defensive spiral any AShM should be doing at least Mach 2 terminal with deployable countermeasures. NSM for example will be in the PLAN's CIWS engagement zone for at least four seconds; that's over 300 chances of a hit per gun.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's also skipping engagements from longer ranged weapons entirely.

For sake of example, I'm calling the horizon/detection range 20km and I'm going to use USN weapons because I'm more familiar with them. Replace with the appropriate systems.
A ship would detect a subsonic missile 60 seconds to impact.​
Shoot SM2, NSM is 19km at launch, 57sec to impact. SM2 at low altitude does about 1km/s. First interception chance happens at about 15km, NSM is 45sec to impact.​
Shoot ESSM, which also does about 1km/s at low altitude. Second interception chance at 10km, NSM is 30 seconds to impact.​
Shoot RAM, which IIRC does about 1km/s. Third interception chance at about 5km because RAM takes several seconds to spin up.​
Shoot CIWS starting at about 3km and 10sec to impact.​

What happens when the detection range of NSM is 10km? All of a sudden, you only have RAM and CIWS to shoot in your defense.



Kiltonge said:
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all realise this - so why don't other countries? Or i it just a focus on cost?
Click to expand...
AShMs have not really been a priority in the USN. At all. "We have carrier air for that."

And it's why I have been obscenely jealous of Kalibr missiles with their 1km/s terminal sprint for some 30km.
 
The trade off for that high sprint speed is a tomahawk sized launch weight with a third or less of the range. And for everything up until that last 30km, it’s just as slow and vulnerable as any NATO weapon. So there are trade offs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
For sake of example, I'm calling the horizon/detection range 20km and I'm going to use USN weapons because I'm more familiar with them. Replace with the appropriate systems.
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the range out at which modern combatants will be able to pick a sea skimming missile (3-5 m sea skimming profile followed by a 2 meter terminal profile). 30+ km is doable with appropriate mast mounted radars. These will have helicopters and other elevated sensors as well. This obviously assumes the entire flight profile of the weapon is at low to very low altitudes and profiles. Add a mid altitude cruise phase and you will detect it even sooner allowing even more reaction time.

Unrelated but here's the SM-2 defeating a sea skimming supersonic target. While not an NSM, the reaction time for something like this is going to be even less.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaUo_xX4CrE



Scott Kenny said:
What happens when the detection range of NSM is 10km? All of a sudden, you only have RAM and CIWS to shoot in your defense.
Click to expand...

Where does 10 km (or 1/2 the stated detection range assumption) come from?
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all realise this - so why don't other countries? Or i it just a focus on cost?
Click to expand...

The Philippines have acquired Brahmos batteries for themselves. A combination of those and NSM might make for an unpleasant defensive problem. Low-level non-emitting skimmer with terminal maneuvers plus a supersonic skimmer (or high-diver) timed to arrive together would be very nasty.
 
Kiltonge said:
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all realise this - so why don't other countries? Or i it just a focus on cost?
Click to expand...
They have. Things like ACME (US Navy), SM-6 1B (US Navy), HACM (US Air Force), PrSM (US Army/MC?) etc are all being developed or fielded in the near to medium term and will be faster than NSM/JSM and LRASM. Cost and size does play into this. For each one of those exquisite high supersonic or hypersonic systems, you buy 2-3 subsonic weapons. Same with tactical aircraft or ground vehicle carriage. There is no doubt as far as the US operators are concerned as to the benefits of having subsonic and supersonic/hypersonic anti ship capability as part of a mix/portfolio of weapons.
 
Range also is an issue. Tomahawks are good for a thousand miles and this allows a lot of different launchers to focus their attacks on a specific target. LRASM range is pretty modest, but the C2 and C3 versions apparently will apparently buy back the range of JAASM ER. High speed is not just high cost, it also is generally higher launch weight or shorter range, or both.
 
bring_it_on said:
I think you are underestimating the range out at which modern combatants will be able to pick a sea skimming missile (3-5 m sea skimming profile followed by a 2 meter terminal profile). 30+ km is doable with appropriate mast mounted radars. These will have helicopters and other elevated sensors as well. This obviously assumes the entire flight profile of the weapon is at low to very low altitudes and profiles. Add a mid altitude cruise phase and you will detect it even sooner allowing even more reaction time.
Click to expand...
Entirely possible.

If NSM is detectable at 30km by shipboard radars, that gives you a second SM2/equivalent shot at it on the way in.

Which bring us back to the question "Is the NSM detectable by AEW or fighter-mounted look-down-shoot-down radars?"

It's LO-shaped. I doubt RAM is baked into the skin like on LRASM, but it's possible.

Does a turbofan powered missile require a mid altitude cruise phase?



bring_it_on said:
Where does 10 km (or 1/2 the stated detection range assumption) come from?
Click to expand...
Straight out of my ass.

But NSM has LO shaping applied, so it should not be detectable at some distance where a Harpoon would be detectable. So if the radar horizon is at 30km like you said, how much closer can NSM get before it is detected?

Because if you can't get the missile undetectable to a ship at 30km, head-on LO treatments are a waste of money on an inherently disposable item. Yet even Block V Tomahawks have gotten a chined nosecone, so it obviously helps reduce detection range.
 
Josh_TN said:
The trade off for that high sprint speed is a tomahawk sized launch weight with a third or less of the range. And for everything up until that last 30km, it’s just as slow and vulnerable as any NATO weapon. So there are trade offs.
Click to expand...
Do you need more than 250-300nmi range for an antiship missile?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom