US Navy News and updates

FormerDirtDart said:
If you were hoping for some type of semi-operational mounting of the NSW on-board the USS Coronado for the much hyped test firing...

Not so much.
Have to settle for test stand bolted well aft center of the helo-deck.
USS Coronado Performs Live-Fire Test of Norwegian Strike Missile
Click to expand...

Eh, that can come later if the missile displays a significant capability increase for the LCS. I imagine it'll face some stiff competition from the incoming LRASM design, which has completed exit tests from a Mk. 41 VLS using the ASROC booster, but is still far from battle-ready. If for some reason the NSM is deemed more appropriate for LCS then I don't imagine it'd be too difficult to find a place for a pair of quad tubes as per the standard Harpoon setup.

I'm just glad to see they're doing the test as I've had my eye on the NSM for some time now and if it's good enough to get a try-out for the USN (what with the whole Not Invented Here phenomenon) then it sounds like it could be quite a promising missile. That and (personally speaking) I find it reassuring that there's a possibility of the LCS getting a far more significant anti-surface weapon than Griffin, Longbow Hellfire, etc. I do wonder if they've looked at Spike NLOS for a better anti-boat swarm weapon, but at least the helo can take the lead there, and hopefully give the ship-launched Hellfires a slightly increased range with off-board targeting.
 
There's a lot of not-invented here kit in the LCS so it might be less of a shock if they buy NSM than might be at first thought.

It's likely smaller and cheaper than LRASM so I don't see it as direct competition.
 
As well as being much smaller than LRASM (probably well under less than half the weight) & probably a fair bit cheaper, NSM has some other advantages. It's available right now, tried, tested, & in service.
 
AFAIK, LRASM is just a stopgap solution to be ordered in limited quantities and under Phase 1 of the Navy's OASuW Program. Though successful testing from VLS has been conducted, Congress has only funded the negotiated purchase from LM of the air-launched variant.

Navy will bid out Phase 2 which addresses the long term requirement to deal with a so-called "Advanced 2024 threat" to equip surface and air assets.

I don‘t see a role for NSM in the current OASuW strategy.
 
Last edited:
barney41 said:
I don‘t see a role for NSM in the current OASuW strategy.
Click to expand...

Kongsberg and Raytheon are teaming to offer the further multi-role development of the NSM, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for the US Navy's OASuW program.
Raytheon and Kongsberg team to provide air-launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare solutions - MarketWatch

Kongsberg has also entered into integration and marketing agreements with Lockheed Martin, several years ago, for use of the JSM on the F-35. A key feature being that the JSM's modified shape will fit inside the F-35's internal weapons bay.
 
AegisFC said:
DDG-1000 will start sea trials next spring.

Meet the Zumwalt: The Navy's stealth destroyer will go to sea next spring | Navy Times | navytimes.com

One thing I didn't realize is that unlike the Burkes the Zumwalts will have a full bird CO.
Click to expand...

Compare its length/displacement numbers vs. the CG47 class...and then it'll all make sense.

"Destroyer" really doesn't properly describe it.

And then there's the two guns thing...these days, the most practical difference between CGs and DDGs is the number of guns.
 
FormerDirtDart said:
Kongsberg and Raytheon are teaming to offer the further multi-role development of the NSM, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for the US Navy's OASuW program.

Kongsberg has also entered into integration and marketing agreements with Lockheed Martin, several years ago, for use of the JSM on the F-35. A key feature being that the JSM's modified shape will fit inside the F-35's internal weapons bay.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that Kongsberg has switched partners on JSM. They had partnered with LM previously but the latter has apparently placed it‘s bets on LRASM.

The Kongsberg-Raytheon tieup is for JSM exclusively and from what I know Raytheon is going for an in-house solution to address the needs of the surface warfare community, likely leveraging it‘s Tomahawk legacy.

I guess Kongsberg could try to go it alone or find some other US partner to push NSM.

IMO the USN would prefer the simple and elegant solution of having a single OASuW solution.
 
Last edited:
swerve said:
As well as being much smaller than LRASM (probably well under less than half the weight) & probably a fair bit cheaper, NSM has some other advantages. It's available right now, tried, tested, & in service.
Click to expand...

Is it really less than half the weight? Damn, LRASM is bigger than I thought. Are you extrapolating from JASSM-ER weight figures?

I agree with you with regard to the benefits of NSM, and think it'll make a fine missile. It'd be nice to see something that could FINALLY replace Harpoon. Interested to see how RBS-15 Mk. IV turns out, although again that's sounding like it'll be quite a sizable missile.
 
barney41 said:
It's interesting that Kongsberg has switched partners on JSM. They had partnered with LM previously but the latter has apparently placed it‘s bets on LRASM.

The Kongsberg-Raytheon tieup is for JSM exclusively and from what I know Raytheon is going for an in-house solution to address the needs of the surface warfare community, likely leveraging it‘s Tomahawk legacy.

I guess Kongsberg could try to go it alone or find some other US partner to push NSM.

IMO the USN would prefer the simple and elegant solution of having a single OASuW solution.
Click to expand...

Single solutions would certainly be more elegant, and is more in line with the history of what Harpoon provided in the past. However, the problem is that a weapon suitable for TACAIR release is also going to have some performance limitations which make it less than ideal as an SSM, even more so as the weapons bay limitation of the JSF constrains growth space even further than what is possible with a JASSM family weapon.
Given the limitations of VLS and reloads taking considerably longer than turning a jet around on a carrier, shipdrivers tend to want more bang for the "space" i.e. each VLS cell occupied by something than an SM family missile.
 
CB90 said:
Single solutions would certainly be more elegant, and is more in line with the history of what Harpoon provided in the past. However, the problem is that a weapon suitable for TACAIR release is also going to have some performance limitations which make it less than ideal as an SSM, even more so as the weapons bay limitation of the JSF constrains growth space even further than what is possible with a JASSM family weapon.
Given the limitations of VLS and reloads taking considerably longer than turning a jet around on a carrier, shipdrivers tend to want more bang for the "space" i.e. each VLS cell occupied by something than an SM family missile.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't see the F-35's weapons bay constraining the size of the weapon to be procured. True enough internal carriage would offer the advantage of a lower signature but in reality the non-stealthy F-18SH will constitute the bulk of the USN strike fighter fleet for many years to come even after F-35C IOC. The key is the weapon have sufficient range to be launched well beyond the range of any IADS and a larger size actually supports this.
 
Bonza said:
Is it really less than half the weight? Damn, LRASM is bigger than I thought. Are you extrapolating from JASSM-ER weight figures?

I agree with you with regard to the benefits of NSM, and think it'll make a fine missile. It'd be nice to see something that could FINALLY replace Harpoon. Interested to see how RBS-15 Mk. IV turns out, although again that's sounding like it'll be quite a sizable missile.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that it's not going to be much different in size than JASSM-ER, & I think that's a pretty safe assumption. If it's going to carry a decent sized warhead at least 500 nautical miles (the officially stated range), it has to be a similar size.

NSM is 410 kg, It has a 125kg warhead & a range of 185 km+. To multiply that range by five (what they say LRASM will have), I don't see how you can have a missile which isn't much bigger - e.g. JASSM-ER size. Shrinking the warhead isn't an option. It's already much smaller than a Harpoon warhead.
 
swerve said:
I'm assuming that it's not going to be much different in size than JASSM-ER, & I think that's a pretty safe assumption. If it's going to carry a decent sized warhead at least 500 nautical miles (the officially stated range), it has to be a similar size. It still beats NSM though and comes with a much bigger warhead. It doesn't appear thought to outrange some of the opposing systems out there which was one of the objectives at program inception.

.
Click to expand...

LM has pretty much disabused the perception that since LRASM is based on JASSM-ER it will have a similar range range. Here's an excerpt from an article in Air Force Magazine that I came across on another forum. All the additional sensors and electronics have necessitated a reduced fuel load.

AirSea Battle Weapon?

AirSea Battle Weapon?: Lockheed Martin hopes to get on contract with the Navy in 2014 for a derivative of its Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and JASSM-Extended Range system called the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile, according to Dick Tate, the company's program manager for the new weapon. Developed as a DARPA project, LRASM has "the same mold line" and thus about the same stealth as the JASSM-ER, but replaces some of that weapon's internal fuel with avionics that permit man-in-the-loop "multimode" terminal guidance, said Tate last week at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla. The sensors are designed to give the weapon capability against moving sea targets or mobile land targets. The JASSM-ER can go more than 500 miles, but LRASM would have close to the baseline JASSM's range of more than 200 miles, said Tate. LRASM has a 1000-pound warhead and is meant for launch from aircraft like F/A-18E/Fs or B-1Bs, or from shipboard vertical launch system tubes with an ASROC rocket boosting it. Lockheed Martin said it successfully tested the system pushing through a VLS tube cover and the nose-mounted apertures were unaffected. The company also has conducted captive carriage flight testing of the LRASM sensor suite. The weapon would have about 85 percent commonality with JASSM-ER and would be built on the same production line in Alabama, according to the company.
 
CB90 said:
Compare its length/displacement numbers vs. the CG47 class...and then it'll all make sense.

"Destroyer" really doesn't properly describe it.

And then there's the two guns thing...these days, the most practical difference between CGs and DDGs is the number of guns.
Click to expand...

Also compare it to the late WWII-vintage BALTIMORE-class heavy cruisers.

Of course, the newer DDGs themselves are coming in right around the same weight as WWII CLAAs.
 
swerve said:
I'm assuming that it's not going to be much different in size than JASSM-ER, & I think that's a pretty safe assumption. If it's going to carry a decent sized warhead at least 500 nautical miles (the officially stated range), it has to be a similar size.

NSM is 410 kg, It has a 125kg warhead & a range of 185 km+. To multiply that range by five (what they say LRASM will have), I don't see how you can have a missile which isn't much bigger - e.g. JASSM-ER size. Shrinking the warhead isn't an option. It's already much smaller than a Harpoon warhead.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean now, thanks for the additional info. I'm intrigued by the new crop of Western anti-ship missiles, as it seems about time the Harpoon and Exocet bow out (although the Exocet MM40 Block III does still seem fairly capable).
 
barney41:

Thanks. I'd seen the 1000lb warhead figure before, but from the context it looked as if might just have been a journalistic assumption. I'd also wondered about targeting & control over 500 nautical miles. 200 miles or so seems more manageable.

But still, at least twice the weight of NSM. The warhead alone weighs more than an NSM.
 
If LM sticks with LRASM, Raytheon may have an opening by offering an in-house solution with a substantially longer reach.

A 200nmi range may be a big improvement over Harpoon but at the rate the networked battlespace is evolving and expanding it‘s coverage, being able to strike accurately from even longer distances could be a difference-maker.

Getting a JSM win for the airborne variant in partnership with Kongsberg would be icing on the cake but IMO Raytheon is focused on the big prize of arming the surface/subsurface fleets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top