Kongsberg NSM - which way is up?

TomS said:
Note the explosive weight is given as TNT equivalent. Most modern insensitive explosives have REFs (TNT equivalent) higher than 1.0, so the actual fill weight is probably less than 100 kg.
Click to expand...
Not many explosives with an REF over 2.0, though. 1.5 is pretty typical.


TomS said:
Wondering if the crane off of the Harpoon and the crane on of the NSM were the same day. If so, I suspect the Kongsberg folks were clever and designed the NSM launcher to use the same bolt pattern.
Click to expand...
I would be shocked if they didn't.
 
NMaude said:
Wouldn't it be easier and more convenient if it was launched from a submarines VLS cells?
Click to expand...

Not all of the intended sub platforms even have VLS. And at least for the USN, submarine VLS is basically 21-inch diameter, just like a torpedo tube.
 
kqcke for you said:
Wouldn't JSM Work to? Could be an better alternative with more boom
Click to expand...

The proposed sub launched NSM, the NSM-SL, is in fact a JSM as the changes made to fit inside the bay of F-35 also made 21 inch torpedo tube launch possible.

Allegedly its development is part of the German-Norwegian deal on the 212CD submarine, possibly including the actual development of IDAS as well, with both navies purchasing it as part of the overarching deal.

https://imgur.com/XdFY3tF
View: https://imgur.com/XdFY3tF


https://imgur.com/ThufFBJ
View: https://imgur.com/ThufFBJ


TomS said:
Not all of the intended sub platforms even have VLS. And at least for the USN, submarine VLS is basically 21-inch diameter, just like a torpedo tube.
Click to expand...

And on the SSN-X the USN might not even have VLS.
 
If i remember right JSM could have larger warhead for less range. I think max was ~360kg but only NSM range or so

Edit: its 375kg warhead with a 370km range. Probaly hi hi lo then.
With 125kg and hi hi lo Trajectory its some 560km or more.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Wouldn't it be easier and more convenient if it was launched from a submarines VLS cells?
Click to expand...
VLS tubes are also basically 21".


timmymagic said:
The proposed sub launched NSM, the NSM-SL, is in fact a JSM as the changes made to fit inside the bay of F-35 also made 21 inch torpedo tube launch possible.

Allegedly its development is part of the German-Norwegian deal on the 212CD submarine, possibly including the actual development of IDAS as well, with both navies purchasing it as part of the overarching deal.
Click to expand...
I really would like to see IDAS deployed. It's kinda necessary for any subs that are stuck operating in extremely shallow waters, like the Baltic.


timmymagic said:
And on the SSN-X the USN might not even have VLS.
Click to expand...
That's got about 50-50 chances. I expect the SSN-X design to basically be the Columbia class engineroom with a more or less Seawolf class forward compartment on it (Columbia class is bigger around by about 3 feet). Last concept art I saw only had 6x torpedo tubes up front instead of the Seawolf's 8x, but I'm still expecting a torpedo room with space for at least 38 stows if they include a VLS/VPMs up front. Maybe even 50 stows in the torpedo room like the Seawolf and another 12 in the VLS.
 
I think it likely there will be some kind of VLS for missiles, even if it isn’t a full four trident tube rocket section. Actually I consider more likely they skip forward tubes and do a single launch tube section behind the sail. There’s too much utility in large missile salvos not to have it as an option, and hypersonic weapons are only going to make having some kind of limited SSGN like capability more relevant.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely there will be some kind of VLS for missiles, even if it isn’t a full four trident tube rocket section. Actually I consider more likely they skip forward tubes and do a single launch tube section behind the sail. There’s too much utility in large missile salvos not to have it as an option, and hypersonic weapons are only going to make having some kind of limited SSGN like capability more relevant.
Click to expand...
I was expecting the SSN(X) to have a VLS forward like the current Virginia Payload Module, which is a 30something foot deep 7ft diameter single tube and hatch that gets a unit of 6x21" tubes and a central electronics access area.

They may also build a shortened Columbia class SSGN to replace the Trident SSGNs. (Shortened to make it obvious from satellite which hulls are GN and which hulls are BN)
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was expecting the SSN(X) to have a VLS forward like the current Virginia Payload Module, which is a 30something foot deep 7ft diameter single tube and hatch that gets a unit of 6x21" tubes and a central electronics access area.

They may also build a shortened Columbia class SSGN to replace the Trident SSGNs. (Shortened to make it obvious from satellite which hulls are GN and which hulls are BN)
Click to expand...
Give the Columbias only have 16 tubes, what about a longer SSGN?

The extra volume seems to be the main reason behind procuring of an SSGN based on the Columbia hull, so shortening the boat by using fewer tubes seems to be a bad idea.
 
I don’t see why arms control would be an issue. The four current SSGNs were not an issue and arms control quite frankly seems unlikely for the indefinite future, now that such treaties would have to be three party.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Give the Columbias only have 16 tubes, what about a longer SSGN?

The extra volume seems to be the main reason behind procuring of an SSGN based on the Columbia hull, so shortening the boat by using fewer tubes seems to be a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Kinda depends on what the overall role of the SSGN is. If you want to carry a platoon of SEALs and a bunch of TLAMs, you don't need all that much length for the SEALs themselves. I can rack and stack them in 56ft full length (3 high, 3 wide, 7 deep), or maybe 80ft to not have them crawl over each other to get out of the racks to pee.

As to the missile capacity, I'm assuming 8-12 tubes in quad packs without any VLS up forward. No existing mission has required more than ~40 Tomahawks (see the capacity of a Block V Virginia class), so 6x big tubes is all it would take to hold that. Two more tubes in the front quad would be the oversized, 102" tubes like in the Ohio SSGNs as diver lockout chambers. Adding a third quad pack would make space for DDS and whatever ends up replacing the ASDS. Which makes 12x big tubes total. And that doesn't get into which torpedo room gets used on the SSGNs, since the SSGNs could use either the entire forward compartment of the Columbia class, or could use the forward compartment of the SSN(X) which is expected to be Seawolf sized (plus or minus VPMs up forward).
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t see why arms control would be an issue. The four current SSGNs were not an issue and arms control quite frankly seems unlikely for the indefinite future, now that such treaties would have to be three party.
Click to expand...
The current SSGNs actually did take some negotiation with the Russians. The original treaty defined a strategic launcher by tube diameter, which would have required physically cutting the missile compartment out of the hull. So the US negotiated with the Russians over allowing tube length instead, which was accepted (in addition to physically removing all the guidance and launcher controls necessary to operate strategic missiles).
 
Now the question is how.
Ramjet of some sort?
Mutch more powerful turbo Jet (modefied TRI-60 ) with more than 2 Times thrust?
Rocket because we're old school?
Probaly an air-augmented rocket engine then.
 
Last edited:
This is a good move. A supersonic ASM is a great compliment to the stealthy and smart NSM.

This was highlighted by DARPA with their LRASM-A and LRASM-B concept.

I'd rather see Norway do this on their own though. They seem to have mastered agile, streamlined development and procurement. The Germans are far in the other direction.
 
kqcke for you said:
Now the question is how.
Ramjet of some sort?
Mutch more powerful turbo Jet (modefied TRI-60 ) with more than 2 Times thrust?
Rocket because we're old school?
Click to expand...

The image is clearly an air breather, which almost certainly means ramjet. It actually looks almost exactly like the NG naval strike mock up that is presumed to be their losing HALO entry.
 
Josh_TN said:
The image is clearly an air breather, which almost certainly means ramjet. It actually looks almost exactly like the NG naval strike mock up that is presumed to be their losing HALO entry.
Click to expand...
I know but all could be possible.
The ramjet technology could be from Nammo and / or bayern chemical.
 
Jimmo952 said:
This is a good move. A supersonic ASM is a great compliment to the stealthy and smart NSM.
Click to expand...
It would be interresting to know how mutch this and NSM/JSM compare (stealth, Payload l, range, seeker,....)
Hope its as stealthy as NSM and has passiv guidance (IR and maybe like lrasm esm).
Jimmo952 said:
I'd rather see Norway do this on their own though.
Click to expand...
Im more for multiple states developing this / something like this. I mean both have the same / similiar start Options and want the same (as far as i know) so this has very good chances to be a very good supplement or replacement of NSM.
Jimmo952 said:
They seem to have mastered agile, streamlined development and procurement. The Germans are far in the other direction.
Click to expand...
Not allways and in 12 years many things can happen in both directions for both.
 
kqcke for you said:
I know but all could be possible.
The ramjet technology could be from Nammo and / or bayern chemical.
Click to expand...

It’s possible, but given the fact neither has a functioning solid ramjet product yet I would bet on liquid fuel. Would solid fuel have any advantage in this application? I guess in terms of fire hazard aboard a ship.
 
Josh_TN said:
It’s possible, but given the fact neither has a functioning solid ramjet product yet I would bet on liquid fuel. Would solid fuel have any advantage in this application? I guess in terms of fire hazard aboard a ship.
Click to expand...
Yes but it wouldn't have to be. A Ramjet with Borane fuel or some Special mixture could also work and maybe they even go further and combine it with an RDE.
Maybe Gel Type fuel who knows. Its just to early to Tell as they say nothing except its supersonic
 
Josh_TN said:
It’s possible, but given the fact neither has a functioning solid ramjet product yet I would bet on liquid fuel. Would solid fuel have any advantage in this application? I guess in terms of fire hazard aboard a ship.
Click to expand...

Assuming it's kerosene fuelled, there's no more hazard than the current AScMs.
 
NMaude said:
I was referring to the launcher, a ground-launched NSM would be very useful for the Ukrainians to have.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of truck-mobile versions. Poland has a couple of batteries on conventional heavy trucks, which is what was being discussed for possible transfer to Ukraine.

The USMC has some unspecified number of NMESIS launchers, actually use a remote-control truck chassis.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom