Posted on 12/11/2016 5:54:43 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
The modern age of the missile at sea was arguably kicked off in October 1967, when the Israeli destroyer Eilat, sailing fourteen miles off the coast of Port Said, was ambushed by a pair of Osa-class guided missile boats. The missile boats launched four missiles, three of which hit the ex–Royal Navy destroyer, sinking her and killing forty-seven sailors.
The sinking of the Eilat was an earthquake in the world of naval warfare, and set off an arms race in the field of antiship missiles. Within ten years all major navies had their own ship-killing missiles, a rivalry that continued until the end of the Cold War. Now, with the Chinese and Russian navies resurgent, many countries (including the United States) are looking to replace their aging antiship missile arsenals with a new, modern design.
One of the newest tactical missile designs around is built by the Norwegian firm Kongsberg. A Russian neighbor with a very long coastline, Norway required a modern missile capable of defending that coastline. The result is the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a clean-sheet design that Kongsberg describes as “the only fifth generation long range precision strike missile in existence.”
NSM is launched from a helicopter or ship platform by a solid rocket fuel booster that quickly accelerates the missile to cruising speed. Seconds later, the turbojet engine kicks in and the missile continues on to target. NSM has a range of just over one hundred miles.
Unlike supersonic missiles such as the Russian P-800 Oniks, which is capable of Mach 2.5, NSM stays well below supersonic speeds. Kongsberg, according to an industry rep interviewed at the 2013 DSEI show in London, England, believes in “smart missiles, rather than speedy missiles.” This philosophy has created a totally different missile than existing designs. Rather than attempt to overcome enemy defenses with a fast missile, Kongsberg instead made its missile more difficult to detect—and therefore more difficult to shoot down.
NSM is designed to be low-observable—not entirely stealthy, but Kongsberg made design decisions to reduce the missile’s radar signature. Other antiship missiles such as the American Harpoon and French Exocet are not stealthy at all. NSM combines this with a sea-skimming capability, flying low over the wavetops to stay off enemy radar until the last possible moment.
Most antiship missiles on the global arms market use an active radar seeker to home in on their targets. Although effective, this broadcasting of a radar signal gives defenders another means of detecting an inbound missile with their electronic support measures equipment. NSM uses passive imaging infrared sensors that don’t radiate an identifiable signal.
Passive countermeasures aren’t the only tools in NSM’s toolbox. The missile is capable of high-G maneuvers in the terminal phase, making its path difficult to predict. This is especially useful against gun-type close-in weapon systems, such as Phalanx CIWS or the Chinese Type 730, that fire on predicted missile paths.
Moments from impact, the missile’s Autonomous Target Recognition searches an enemy task group for the exact ship to target. Furthermore, Naval Strike Missile has target hit point selectability, meaning it can be programmed to strike a certain part of a certain enemy ship, such as the bridge. On impact it delivers a 276-pound high-explosive warhead. The warhead has a programmable fuse, allowing it to detonate on contact with an enemy ship or deep within an enemy ship’s interior. The missile is described as having a titanium warhead, which is likely to help penetrate enemy hulls.
NSM is currently in service with the Norwegian Navy, where it arms the Fridtjolf Nansen–class Aegis frigates and the Skjold fast attack boats. It is also operational with Poland’s Coastal Missile Division, which employs a truck-mounted version. The U.S. military, searching for a replacement for Harpoon, is very interested in this versatile missile, which could go on to arm Seahawk helicopters, cruisers, destroyers and the littoral combat ship (LCS). The missile was test fired from the USS Coronado in 2014, striking a mobile test ship target off the coast of California. Kongsberg apparently thinks NSM has a bright future in the United States as it has already firmed up plans to manufacture them in Kentucky in cooperation with Raytheon.
Kongsberg has developed a variant of the NSM known as the Joint Strike Missile (JSM). JSM is meant for long range strike against both land targets and ships. The missile was designed to fit in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Joint Strike Missile. To accomplish this, the turbojet’s air intake was moved from the bottom of the missile to both sides of the aircraft, and the missile’s fins were altered.
A consequence of making the JSM fit inside the F-35 is that it is now compatible with the Mk.41 vertical launch system. The Mk. 41 VLS is the standard missile silo for U.S., NATO and other allied naval vessels. Previous missiles, such as Harpoon, were bolted onto the superstructure or deck of a ship where space allowed. This not only limited the number of missiles that could be carried but was detrimental to a ship’s radar cross section. Most ships with Mk.41 modules have scores of them, meaning even a destroyer-type ship such as the Arleigh Burke class could theoretically carry up to ninety of them.
The Naval Strike Missile may not be widely fielded now, but it looks to have a bright future ahead. Adoption by U.S. forces appears certain, if only to complement Lockheed’s larger, heavier, longer-range Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. Once that happens, other navies will fall in line, and missile factories in Kentucky will likely be humming far into the night.
sukhoi-30mki i always enjoy the military articles that you post.
Thank You
Wish that you would create a ping list for them...
I second that motion.
Thirds. Your posts are among my favorites.
count me in
Sharing is caring.
The era of the surface warship is over.
Very interesting capability group, I wonder if they are looking at possible submarine launch capability?
Your posts are always good reading. Thanks!
“The era of the surface warship is over.”
For full scale war among major world powers, maybe. But when it comes to things like bombing ISIS, a carrier battle group still projects power in ways that nothing else can. I do agree we should reduce our surface fleet and spend the money elsewhere, but I don’t think it’s close to being obsolete.
“The era of the surface warship is over.”
I don’t think that’s correct, as directed energy (laser) defensive weapons are just coming into their own. I’d be interested to know how current airborne radar and IR sensors perform against this missile - all of which is no doubt classified.
The supercarriers do represent a whole lot of eggs in individual baskets though...
For a number of reasons, the deployed hardware will always have some degree of obsolescence when a major war comes. Its lifetime is measured in decades, or in some cases, half centuries. The capability to kill expensive weapons will evolve faster than defenses can be designed, tested and deployed. This is because a potential adversary can see your advantage in, say carrier groups, and will focus on developing ways to kill them, (hyper-velocity missiles) or deny them access to the areas they need to be in to affect the attacker, (mines.) When the ability to kill your asset is relatively cheap, say ten million per missile, and the asset is expensive, 20-30 billion dollars, not including escorts and operational costs, the asset will have its defenses swamped by cheap attacks. It doesn’t matter if they can shoot down a missile at mach 10 if there are a dozen missiles coming in at the same time.
The battleship was actually rendered obsolete by the British torpedo attack on the Italian fleet. They inflicted substantial damage using biplanes. Neither the biplane or the torpedo were new. They were just being used in a new way. So, in reality, the battleship had been functioning on borrowed time since the first world war. The Japanese took notice. By the time America realized the battleship was obsolete America had lost several with thousands of lives. Yes, they did serve out the war and served an important role, but not the role they were designed for; ship to ship slug fests.
The US Navy is against changing anything. There are lots of reasons. Change is frightening. Having learned how to advance and succeed in the current environment, officers are scared that they won’t survive in a changed political environment. George W. Bush wanted to develop a new class of assault ship which would be highly automated, have the firepower to reduce and entire country to ruin and could submerge to a depth of 300 meters. It wouldn’t need an aircraft carrier or huge numbers of escort ships. GWB had admirals visit Congressmen to pitch the idea. Then, along behind the admirals came senior captains who said it was a bad idea. The idea was killed. Instead, we got the Independence class of littoral assault ships.
Possibly the reason the Navy wanted the idea killed is it would have substantially reduced the size of the organization and the operating costs. The bigger both are, the more personal power the men at the top swing. Change doesn’t happen in the military until it must happen. If it hadn’t been for the wars of the twentieth century, the Army would probably just now be changing over from trap door rifles.
Stick with these general
The offensive weaponry is becoming smaller, more stealthy and more lethal. As you say it will not be with a solitary missile or even on weapon system that surface ships will be attacked.Imagine a Chinese junior officer behind a console with a joystick in hand directing a flock of stealthy “seagull drones”, launched by a submarine based cruise missile 1000 miles away from a detected target, each less than 18 inches and packed with C4 plastique.
Frankly an ethical senior Admiral will have a dilemma ordering young people to crew those ships.
“Imagine a Chinese junior officer behind a console with a joystick in hand directing a flock of stealthy “seagull drones”, launched by a submarine based cruise missile 1000 miles away from a detected target, each less than 18 inches and packed with C4 plastique.”
That is exactly what I am imagining. There will be no such thing as complete control the battle’s air space. Even Humas and Hezbollah are using drones now. (Hezbollah has also deployed Silkworm missiles from the shores of Lebanon.) One of the reasons the US Army has wanted to move away from the Abrams tank is the logistics train is hugely vulnerable to exactly the attack you describe. A mile of so behind the tanks are two lines of tanker trucks; one coming, and one going. They are soft targets and killing them, which is easy, is the same as killing the tanks. Without fuel they are suddenly a gun platform that is too hot to sit inside and operate.
Harpoon may not be fast or stealthy, but we have several thousand of them I would imagine.
So what is more effective in a war? A couple dozen hypersonic or stealth missiles or a couple thousand harpoons?
For all the tactical brilliance of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese hadn’t learned the lesson either. They spent the war scrambling to build carriers (even while building two super-battleships they could scarcely afford to operate) and in the end, far more Japanese battleships went to the bottom than did American ones.
They did, however, figure out that surface-launched torpedoes offered greater potential than naval guns, especially at night. As you point out about “change”, our old-Navy “gun club” couldn’t get that idea through their heads, and a lot of sailors paid the price in the Solomons and Gilberts before up-and-coming destroyermen began turning the Imperial Navy’s tactics back against them on the “Tokyo Express” runs.
“Harpoon may not be fast or stealthy, but we have several thousand of them I would imagine.”
The Harpoon Block II weapon costs $1.2 million dollars per copy. You might be shocked at how few we have. I doubt it’s in the thousands. You might also find that many of them are old and in need of upgrade or refurbishment.
When I was the civilian Program Manager on a $50 million dollar Navy project I was surprised at how meager actual purchases were compared with potential needs. The Navy simply doesn’t have the money to fully equip their platforms for war if those platforms aren’t currently being used in a war. There has been little need for Harpoons so you can bet the purchases are just enough to keep the Boeing line active and no more.
The US Navy was equipped with a remotely controlled mine hunter made by BAE. They cost $45,000 per copy. The Iranians have an estimated 50,000 mines in warehouses. I asked my Navy counterpart how many of these mine hunters the Navy had. (They are one time use and can not be brought back aboard as they are armed for the mission and must be destroyed if no mine is found.) He said, “Not many.”
Another way of asking the question you’ve posed is; “How many Phantom F-4’s are required to destroy a thousand Sopwith Camels?” It’s not possible to make this sort of comparison in any meaningful way.
I would agree except we launch 1,000 missiles at the enemy sites to destroy their missiles then we can send in the fleet... maybe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.