The SM-6 is a highly capable but expensive anti-aircraft, anti-cruise and anti-ballistic missile. Taking up a vertical launch cell in increasingly saturation anti-air environment for the anti-ship mission is counter productive. Placing Naval Strike Missile (NSM) box launchers on none Harpoon fitted ships makes great sense. Replacing the Harpoons on Flight I and II Burkes with NSMs, in time, would also be beneficial.
Given how many of them have been fired in the Red Sea intercepting Houthi missiles and drones I have no doubt that the production of the SM-6 will be massively increased and quite likely second-sourced which would dramatically drop the missile's unit price.
They could also try replacing Mk 141 Harpoon launchers with BAE's ADL launchers instead which are basically inclined Mk 41. With ADL they can have more than 96 launchers. Not to mention ADL can be reloaded at sea. ESSMs can be transferred to ADLs so the can stuff more Tomahawks or SM-6 or SM-2 or maybe even Patriot PAC-3 MSE into the VLS.
The type 26 River class destroyers that Canada just started to build have both the NSM and Aegis combat system (AN/SPY-7) so the compatibility has probably already been tested or is not that difficult to integrate.
I would say its the coffin nail for the Harpoon with the USN. Flight I and II Burke carry 8 Harpoons via MK-141 topside launcher Boeing has offered the Harpoon Block II+ ER several times to the USN but they passed every thing Combined with the fact that USMC buys the NSM for their NMESIS launcher as well as its planned for the Constellation class its simply cost effective
I'd have to agree, but it is hard to give up nearly twice the weight of the warhead. We could give the Harpoons to someone like, oh I don't know, Ukraine?
@@davidlambert1102 The NSM is has advanced targeting capability so it can target precise areas of the ship for maximum effect 260lbs warhead strike the rear of a ship will likely knock out engines and power leaving it open for a follow up strike or worse
Arleigh Burges are good warships, great sensors, great anti air capability. But they are expensive and low in offensive capabilities, so they better fix that fast. This is the right move and should've happened 5 years ago. Everybody with eyes saw trouble with China coming.
It's because US prefer air assets for all types of offensive capabilities as it can serve both as an ISR and launching platform. Though Burke don't lack offensive capability with dual purpose land attack/anti-ship Tomahawk, multi-purpose SM-6, maybe even LRASM, and now NSM too.
How about no The MK-41 can carry anything the Burkes needs This was simpler cheaper They are buying NSM for the Constellation class and the USMC is buying it for the NMESIS The TLAM MST will give subs anti ship capability so why buy more Harpoons for
The current Norwegian Fritjof Nansen class frigates have Aegis capabilities integrated on-board and are using the NSM missles. An integration to the Alleigh Burke class should hence not be that big of a problem !
They have probably been working for a while linking the NSM to the Aegis combat system. I would think that they have some or are doing that right now. Because while you can if absolutely necessary use a SM-6 against a surface target the warhead in it is not that big at all. It is made to shoot down ballistic missiles 1st cruise missiles 2nd and aircraft 3rd. It can fire them at literally anything but if the ship you fired it at is too big it won’t be enough to sink it. The NSM will. It has 270 lbs of high explosives. They should have just figured out a way to shoot the LRASM from the Burke class and other surface ships. They are new they started being manufactured in 2017 have a sophisticated guidance system immune to jamming is low observable or stealthy as a missile can get has a 1000 pound warhead and has a range of 240 miles but the exact range is probably classified. It’s a pretty new weapon. 2 of these motherfuckers will sink an aircraft carrier. I think they are exploring a surface launched version of the Burke and other ships. Right now the B1 bombers, the F-18, the F-35, and the P8 Posiden are the only planes that can carry it. At least the only published planes. I wouldn’t be surpsurprised if the B-52 can launch them too. It’s a bad ass weapon. 1000 pounds of hog explosives are enough to destroy pretty much anything.
I am completely underwhelmed by the NSM.. Slow subsonic speed, small warhead, relatively short range... Sure, it's a great addition to the fleet, especially for the small LCS and future frigates.. But why the hell aren't we fielding ship launched LRASM? Now that's a great anti ship missile. Sure, it's also subsonic but it has a huge 1000 pound warhead, long range and a pioneering targeting system that can't be jammed. Leave the NSM (JSM) for the internal carriage of the F-35C.
Deck-mounted canister launchers have an upside and a downside. The upside is that it increases the warship's capacity for missiles; the downside is that canister launchers can be an explosive liability if hit by an incoming missile, increasing the damage to the ship, or in the event of fire spreading on the ship. That is speculated to be one of the likely causes of the sinking of Russia's Moskva in the Black Sea (in addition to non-functioning radars, poor crew performance, lack of functioning fire suppression systems, and fire suppression training). Putting stuff on the deck that can go "boom" adds to wartime hazards. VLS cells are somewhat protected and isolated.
It only flies subsonic, so not much KE. SM-6 on the other hand has the highest KE in US arsenal currently with 61 times the KE of NSM or 21 times the KE of Tomahawk. But main selling point of NSM is its sea-skimming and low observable.
The NSM selling point is its advanced target discrimination it can target specific areas of the ship for maximum effect That 260lbs striking engines will leave the ship disabled and open to follow up strikes or target the weapons The Chinese Type-055 uses a VLS as well , a missile strike there would have the scrambling to prevent the weapons for blowing the ship in half but ultimately, still needs a large warhead as well longer range
The SM-6 is the most capable surface to air missile in the world. I trust them even over the Patriot. They are both top notch the Sm-6 has a longer range quite a bit longer. There is even talk of putting some Patriots on ships the provide a more layered air defense. If the SM-6 doesn’t get it then Patriot would be launched with that big darling gun the last resort against cruise missiles. The gun won’t knock down ballistic missiles but Patriot and SM-6 will. That’s what the sm-6 is made for. Russia launched one of Their hypersonic missiles, not Kinzal it’s not a hypersonic weapon, about 2 months ago and Patriots shot it down. We just found out 1 month ago because the Ukrainians wanted to be absolutely sure that it was one of Russias real hypersonic boost glide vehicles and it was! Patriot has come a LONG way since Desert Storm. The SM-6 can knock down hypersonic too. I wasn’t sure if Patriot could but if it can do it you bet your sweet ass the SM-6 can.
Makes no sense to put nsm on lcs. The ships are already proven to be a money pit. Should have taken that money and spent it on equipping more burkes with nsm.
