By: bring_it_on
- 17th April 2017 at 21:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Courtesy Jane's Missile and Rockets. The upgraded JSM is turning out to be an LRASM-Lite of sorts..
Under the provisions of the contract with the Australian DoD - announced in early April - Kongsberg will integrate and qualify a new low-cost, electronic support measure (ESM) capability with the current IIR package, enabling JSMs to locate targets on the basis of their electronic signature.
Developed by BAE Systems Australia, the ESM features a lightweight passive radio frequency (PRF) sensor with an additional land attack and littoral attack capability as well as a two-way communications line for target adjustment and inflight termination.
The four-channel digital ESM receiver (dimensions: 191 mm x 95mm x 64 mm) features a "better than 1è18 GHz RF Input", "better than 700 MHz instantaneous bandwidth", high precision direction finding (better than 2 root mean square), minimal phase group delay, minimal amplitude ripple, a dual conversion superheterodyne architecture, and an ethernet interface. The software and hardware lineage of the PRF sensor are derived from multiple BAE Systems Australia initiatives including the Passive Radar Identification SysteM III ESM, ALR2002 Advanced Radar Warning Receiver, and Millimetre-Wave Capability and Technology Demonstrator programmes.
Qualification of the new PRF sensor is scheduled for December 2017. Going forward, the new dual IIR/PRF seeker capability - which will enable the missile to operate in all weather conditions - will be the standard available for JSM, a Kongsberg spokesperson told Jane's .
Steve Drury, Director for Aerospace, BAE Systems Australia said, "The combination of this PRF sensor with Kongsberg's existing [IIR] seeker provides a significant enhancement enabling the platform to detect, identify, and geo-locate all [RF] emitters in the environment at long range. These identifications, when fused with the data from the IIR seeker, will provide an increase in operational capability."
By: Loke
- 3rd May 2017 at 10:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing withdraws from yet another competition:
Boeing’s decision to withdraw its widely-used Harpoon missile leaves the Raytheon/Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Lockheed Martin Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) as the likely candidates in the OTH effort.
By: Loke
- 26th May 2017 at 11:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lockheed Martin has elected not to include its Long Range Anti-Ship Missile in the Navy’s competition to field an over-the-horizon missile for the Littoral Combat Ship and frigate, company officials confirmed to USNI News on Wednesday.
With Lockheed and Boeing both out of the competition, the only remaining contender for the OTH award is the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile.
By: bring_it_on
- 26th May 2017 at 11:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a chance that this could be re-written. It would appear that the Navy requirements would force these two vendors to remove capability form their proposals thereby making their proposals "developmental" articles. I know there is general frustration at the DOD with sole source but if they wanted to go down a path that would have eliminated everything but the JSM, they should stand up and do a sole source and rapidly field the capability. It is certainly a capable weapon. Wording contracts after doing an industry survey, knowing full well that they'll end up in a situation where they'll disadvantage competitors on account of having them make changes by removing capability and thereby violating the 'no developmental article' preference is not smart from an acquisition perspective.
The Navy needs a full time SecNav, and the DOD a Frank Kendall replacement as soon as possible. The Air Force is also facing a similar issue with the Compass Call protests, and it too needs somebody permanent (not a placeholder) and empowered that can replace the outstanding job Bill LaPlante did for it.
By: Loke
- 6th June 2017 at 13:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Speaking at an Army symposium last week, U.S. Pacific Command head Admiral Harry Harris revealed that the U.S. Army and the Japanese Ground Self Defense Force will sink a target ship (SINKEX) with shore-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) at next year’s Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC). Since at least last year, U.S. officials have advocated for ground forces to develop an anti-ship capability as part of the Multi-Domain Battle concept as a way to utilize services other than the U.S. Navy to exert sea-control in a hypothetical clash in the Western Pacific.
The U.S. Army will be firing the Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a multi-purpose, subsonic cruise missile designed by Norway’s Kongsberg and built in partnership with Raytheon.
By: Jonesy
- 6th June 2017 at 14:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would appear that the Navy requirements would force these two vendors to remove capability form their proposals thereby making their proposals "developmental" articles.
Is it a case of actually removing capability though?. I read it more as a case of them not getting 'bonus points' for extra capabilities over the stipulated minimum requirement - a minimum requirement that NSM meets. I also understood it that LRASM is still going to have its development cycle completed as a surface launched system (VLS and angled-tube) even if the USN doesn't go for it.
New
Posts: 572
By: Ryan
- 6th June 2017 at 16:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think LRASM and JSM were two different capabilities. LRASM was high-end and JSM was more medium-end. But LRASM with its extra capabilities will cost more and if it doesn't get any points for those added capabilities, then that makes it uncompetitive for the mid-level AShM. And taking stuff out is never efficient financially,
By: bring_it_on
- 9th June 2017 at 11:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is it a case of actually removing capability though?. I read it more as a case of them not getting 'bonus points' for extra capabilities over the stipulated minimum requirement - a minimum requirement that NSM meets. I also understood it that LRASM is still going to have its development cycle completed as a surface launched system (VLS and angled-tube) even if the USN doesn't go for it.
Technically, they could always offered higher capability and then loose out on account of a higher cost. JSM is a good weapon, just that from an acquisition perspective if they wanted it they should have bought it, not looked to compete by creating an RFP that essentially forces the only other competitors to essentially withdraw. One of the things coming out of the BBP work is that laying out incentives for higher capability is good as it tilts offerings more towards the objective than the threshold but if the Navy wanted a very specific capability and were not really willing to pay for anything extra, they should have followed the most efficient contracting mechanism to procure it which would have been a sole source award to Raytheon.
On the LRASM and JSM front, LRASM is a very very small program that is a carry over form DARPA's seeker work. It is something that is going to consume a fairly large amount of resources relative to its acquisition quantity unless the Navy follows up and orders more weapons. Having two passive weapons only makes sense if you are willing to keep both relevant and that comes at a cost. Neither the LRASM purchase for the F-18E/F, nor the JSM purchase for the LCS are awfully large acquisition programs like say the Harpoon has been. This to me is troublesome given that OASuW Increment 2 could well see a totally different, third weapon being thrown into the mix based on the TLAM.
By: Jonesy
- 9th June 2017 at 17:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This to me is troublesome given that OASuW Increment 2 could well see a totally different, third weapon being thrown into the mix based on the TLAM.
OK thats got me baffled then. I thought this was OASuW Increment 2 we were talking about?. I read that the current TLAM stocks were slated for being refurbished, and tweaked to give some multimode capability, regardless of any other consideration but that the 'fullbore' AESA seeker MultiMode Tomahawk was going to face off against LRASM and, it seemed, JSM and Harpoon. It was baffling seeing the lighter missiles in the same competition as the heavyweights.
Are you suggesting that this contest is a seperate one to OASuW Increment 2 and that LRASM is still in that one?. I only ask as the UK has an interest in a potential VL LRASM for our T26 build. Clearly USN not buying that variant will have a knock-on to costs, ongoing support, and weapon availability.
By: bring_it_on
- 9th June 2017 at 21:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The OTH weapon program currently ongoing, where it seems the JSM will be selected, is not OASuW Increment 2. It is a small purchase of JSM for the up gunned LCS vessels. Increment 2 is meant for a weapon for the Navy VLCs.
OK thats got me baffled then. I thought this was OASuW Increment 2 we were talking about?. I read that the current TLAM stocks were slated for being refurbished, and tweaked to give some multimode capability, regardless of any other consideration but that the 'fullbore' AESA seeker MultiMode Tomahawk was going to face off against LRASM and, it seemed, JSM and Harpoon. It was baffling seeing the lighter missiles in the same competition as the heavyweights.
Are you suggesting that this contest is a seperate one to OASuW Increment 2 and that LRASM is still in that one?. I only ask as the UK has an interest in a potential VL LRASM for our T26 build. Clearly USN not buying that variant will have a knock-on to costs, ongoing support, and weapon availability.
Yes its different. The competition for OASuW II is likely to come to a LRASM variant and a TLAM variant but when remains to be seen. No idea what Boeing plans to do there.
EDIT: It seems that the US Navy has very recently (May,2017) shifted the roles and programs. The current expectations are for OASuW Increment 2 to be an air-launched weapon - So essentially a 'competed' Increment I (Could be LRASM, LRASM II/B, or something else) instead of awarding a sole source to Lockheed.
For the VLC, they have created a new program - Next Generation Land Attack Weapon -. From A recent Congressional testimony -
he Department has aligned its Cruise Missile Strategy along warfighter domains to pursue maximized lethality while minimizing overall costs to the taxpayer. The first tenet of our strategy is to sustain the highly successful, combat proven, Tomahawk cruise missile inventory through its anticipated service-life via a mid-life recertification program (first quarter of FY 2019 start). This recertification program will increase missile service-life by an additional 15 years (total of 30 years) and enable the Department to support Tomahawk in our active inventory through the mid-late 2040s. In concert with our recertification program we will integrate modernization and technological upgrades and address existing obsolescence issues. In addition, we are developing a Maritime Strike Tomahawk capability to deliver a long-range anti-surface warfare capability.
Second, the Department will field the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) as the air-launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare/Increment 1 (OASuW/Inc. 1) material solution to meet near to mid-term anti-surface warfare threats. LRASM is pioneering accelerated acquisition processes. We anticipate LRASM will meet all Joint Chiefs of Staff-approved warfighting requirements, deliver on-time, and cost within approximately one percent of its original program cost estimate.
Finally, the Department plans to develop follow-on next generation strike capabilities, including an air-launched OASuW/Increment 2 weapon to address long-term ASuW threats and a surface and submarine launched Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW). NGLAW will have both a long-range land strike and maritime ASuW capability that initially complements, and then replaces, the highly successful Tomahawk Weapon System. To the maximum extent possible, the Department will leverage common components and component technologies to reduce cost, shorten development timelines, and promote interoperability.
Somewhat confusing but its the US Navy we are talking about here. How can it not be.
By: Loke
- 10th December 2017 at 09:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japan is planning to purchase JSMs:
“We are planning to introduce the JSM (Joint Strike Missile) that will be mounted on the F-35A (stealth fighter) as ‘stand-off’ missiles that can be fired beyond the range of enemy threats,” Onodera told a news conference.
Norway and Germany will develop the next generation of NSM:
Norway and Germany agree to further develop a common missile based on the Norwegian Maritime Missile (NSM), which will eventually provide identical missiles in both countries' marines.
"This will be a solid starting point for comprehensive collaboration on operation and lifetime support of the material. The cooperation will help secure Norwegian and German high-tech jobs for a long time, "said Defense Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen.
Cooperation with Germany will further strengthen the position that the Norwegian defense industry has gained through many decades of high technology development. The value of future sales of NSM will be significant and the agreement ensures a technology launch that provides great opportunities for Norwegian industry. This cooperation can lead to increased export potential.
The US Marines are looking at antiship-missiles, including the NSM:
Preferably, any new missile would be able to fire from the existing Army and Marine Corps launchers, the wheeled HIMARS and tracked MLRS. “I wouldn’t at this point exclude something like Raytheon-Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile,” said McConnell. “There is a potential that it’s capable of being modified to fire from a HIMARS.”
By: Loke
- 20th April 2018 at 10:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kongsberg Defence Systems has confirmed receipt of a EUR125 million (USD155 million) contract to supply Naval Strike Missile (NSM) rounds to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).
Announced on 18 April at the Defence Services Asia (DSA) 2018 show in Kuala Lumpur, the sale comes three years after Kongsberg received a letter of award from Boustead Naval Shipyard Sdn Bhd in Lumut, Perak, to provide NSM shipboard equipment for the RMN’s six-ship Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme. The LCS is based on Naval Group’s Gowind 2500 corvette design and the same company’s SETIS combat management system (CMS).
By: Loke
- 1st June 2018 at 09:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The U.S. Navy has awarded its long-awaited Over-the-Horizon Weapon Systems contract to Raytheon, which had joined together with Norwegian defense contractor Kongsberg to offer the Naval Strike Missile, or NSM.
The Pentagon included the fixed-price deal, valued at more than $14.8 million, in its daily contracting announcement notice for May 31, 2018. The contract has additional options and could be worth nearly $850 million in total.
To test the target recognition capabilities, a "fake" target was put in the position that was programmed into the missile; the real target was 100 meters away. The missile did not hit the fake target (which was in the right location) but did hit the correct target 100 meters off the programmed position.
By: Loke
- 21st June 2018 at 08:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Norway’s Kongsberg announced on 20 June that it had been selected by the Norwegian Defence Material Agency to develop the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for use on the forthcoming Germano–Norwegian submarine programme.
The contract, valued at NOK220 million (USD26.9 million), will involve the company collaborating with the German and Norwegian governments on developing the NSM for the future submarine.
The contract represents the first phase of the co-operation plan, and will last for a year.
By: SpudmanWP
- 3rd July 2018 at 23:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kongsberg lands US$85M contract for JSM integration on F-35 fighter jet
Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS (KONGSBERG) has signed a contract worth NOK 700 million (US$ 85.4 million) with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency for JSM test missiles for the integration phase on the F-35, the Norwegian defense contractor stated on June 29, 2018.
As a result of the successful flight test in March and finalization of the development phase in June, the project enters into an F-35 integration phase up to 2023. This phase includes delivery of a number of test missiles, captive-carriage-, safe separation- and live firing tests.
“The JSM project continues on schedule and is the only 5th generation missile available on F-35 representing a significant market potential”, says Eirik Lie, President Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS.
JSM includes advanced mission planning system to exploit sea and land geography. JSM employs a highly accurate navigation system and low altitude flight profile. Automatic Target recognition is supported by an advanced Imaging infrared seeker.JSM includes advanced mission planning system to exploit sea and land geography.
the JSM has both air-to-ship and air-to-surface capabilities, with an estimated range of about 300 kilometers.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 17th April 2017 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Courtesy Jane's Missile and Rockets. The upgraded JSM is turning out to be an LRASM-Lite of sorts..
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 3rd May 2017 at 10:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing withdraws from yet another competition:
Full story: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/boeing-pulls-harpoon-from-us-navy-missile-competition
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 26th May 2017 at 11:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
https://news.usni.org/2017/05/24/lockheed-martin-drops-lrasm-frigate-missile-competition
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 26th May 2017 at 11:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a chance that this could be re-written. It would appear that the Navy requirements would force these two vendors to remove capability form their proposals thereby making their proposals "developmental" articles. I know there is general frustration at the DOD with sole source but if they wanted to go down a path that would have eliminated everything but the JSM, they should stand up and do a sole source and rapidly field the capability. It is certainly a capable weapon. Wording contracts after doing an industry survey, knowing full well that they'll end up in a situation where they'll disadvantage competitors on account of having them make changes by removing capability and thereby violating the 'no developmental article' preference is not smart from an acquisition perspective.
The Navy needs a full time SecNav, and the DOD a Frank Kendall replacement as soon as possible. The Air Force is also facing a similar issue with the Compass Call protests, and it too needs somebody permanent (not a placeholder) and empowered that can replace the outstanding job Bill LaPlante did for it.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 6th June 2017 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read more: http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/us-army-japan-ground-self-defense-force-will-conduct-sinkex-at-rimpac-2018/
Interesting... and potentially good news for Kongsberg.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 6th June 2017 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would appear that the Navy requirements would force these two vendors to remove capability form their proposals thereby making their proposals "developmental" articles.
Is it a case of actually removing capability though?. I read it more as a case of them not getting 'bonus points' for extra capabilities over the stipulated minimum requirement - a minimum requirement that NSM meets. I also understood it that LRASM is still going to have its development cycle completed as a surface launched system (VLS and angled-tube) even if the USN doesn't go for it.
Posts: 572
By: Ryan - 6th June 2017 at 16:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think LRASM and JSM were two different capabilities. LRASM was high-end and JSM was more medium-end. But LRASM with its extra capabilities will cost more and if it doesn't get any points for those added capabilities, then that makes it uncompetitive for the mid-level AShM. And taking stuff out is never efficient financially,
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 9th June 2017 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Technically, they could always offered higher capability and then loose out on account of a higher cost. JSM is a good weapon, just that from an acquisition perspective if they wanted it they should have bought it, not looked to compete by creating an RFP that essentially forces the only other competitors to essentially withdraw. One of the things coming out of the BBP work is that laying out incentives for higher capability is good as it tilts offerings more towards the objective than the threshold but if the Navy wanted a very specific capability and were not really willing to pay for anything extra, they should have followed the most efficient contracting mechanism to procure it which would have been a sole source award to Raytheon.
On the LRASM and JSM front, LRASM is a very very small program that is a carry over form DARPA's seeker work. It is something that is going to consume a fairly large amount of resources relative to its acquisition quantity unless the Navy follows up and orders more weapons. Having two passive weapons only makes sense if you are willing to keep both relevant and that comes at a cost. Neither the LRASM purchase for the F-18E/F, nor the JSM purchase for the LCS are awfully large acquisition programs like say the Harpoon has been. This to me is troublesome given that OASuW Increment 2 could well see a totally different, third weapon being thrown into the mix based on the TLAM.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 9th June 2017 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This to me is troublesome given that OASuW Increment 2 could well see a totally different, third weapon being thrown into the mix based on the TLAM.
OK thats got me baffled then. I thought this was OASuW Increment 2 we were talking about?. I read that the current TLAM stocks were slated for being refurbished, and tweaked to give some multimode capability, regardless of any other consideration but that the 'fullbore' AESA seeker MultiMode Tomahawk was going to face off against LRASM and, it seemed, JSM and Harpoon. It was baffling seeing the lighter missiles in the same competition as the heavyweights.
Are you suggesting that this contest is a seperate one to OASuW Increment 2 and that LRASM is still in that one?. I only ask as the UK has an interest in a potential VL LRASM for our T26 build. Clearly USN not buying that variant will have a knock-on to costs, ongoing support, and weapon availability.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 9th June 2017 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The OTH weapon program currently ongoing, where it seems the JSM will be selected, is not OASuW Increment 2. It is a small purchase of JSM for the up gunned LCS vessels. Increment 2 is meant for a weapon for the Navy VLCs.
Below is the solicitation for the OTH-WS -
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bebac3252b7858d73ca500754b95ebec&tab=core&_cview=1
Yes its different. The competition for OASuW II is likely to come to a LRASM variant and a TLAM variant but when remains to be seen. No idea what Boeing plans to do there.
EDIT: It seems that the US Navy has very recently (May,2017) shifted the roles and programs. The current expectations are for OASuW Increment 2 to be an air-launched weapon - So essentially a 'competed' Increment I (Could be LRASM, LRASM II/B, or something else) instead of awarding a sole source to Lockheed.
For the VLC, they have created a new program - Next Generation Land Attack Weapon -. From A recent Congressional testimony -
Somewhat confusing but its the US Navy we are talking about here. How can it not be.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 14th June 2017 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I heard some rumors that Greece may consider NSM land-based batteries... anybody in Greece who has heard anything about this?
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th December 2017 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japan is planning to purchase JSMs:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-japan/japan-to-acquire-air-launched-missiles-able-to-strike-north-korea-idUSKBN1E20YR
Norway and Germany will develop the next generation of NSM:
Google translated from: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/missilsamarbeid/id2580595/
The US Marines are looking at antiship-missiles, including the NSM:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/marines-seek-anti-ship-himars-high-cost-hard-mission/
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 20th April 2018 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/79388/dsa-2018-malaysia-confirms-nsm-choice-with-missile-order
Malaysia is the 4th country ordering NSM (the others are Norway, Poland, and Germany)
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 1st June 2018 at 09:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21233/its-official-the-navys-next-anti-ship-cruise-missile-will-be-the-naval-strike-missile
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 15th June 2018 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Video of live test of JSM:
https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-er-et-skarpt-jsm-missil-for-forste-gang-pa-vei-mot-et-bakkemal/440021
To test the target recognition capabilities, a "fake" target was put in the position that was programmed into the missile; the real target was 100 meters away. The missile did not hit the fake target (which was in the right location) but did hit the correct target 100 meters off the programmed position.
Testing at Edwards has now been completed:
http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1550877/edwards-test-squadron-completes-joint-strike-missile-test-program/
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 21st June 2018 at 08:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Full story: http://www.janes.com/article/81217/nsm-selected-for-germano-norwegian-submarine
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 3rd July 2018 at 23:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2018/july/4368-kongsberg-lands-us-85m-contract-for-jsm-integration-on-f-35-fighter-jet.html