MBDA has successfully completed a series of trials of the CAMM-ER air defence missile, validating the high-performance of the system say the firm.
The trials have been conducted in the past months and saw a series of successful firings of CAMM-ER that proved the performance of the missile at extended ranges and high altitudes while conducting a number of challenging manoeuvres.
“CAMM-ER is the extended range member of the new-generation CAMM air defence family of weapons. All members of the CAMM family share the same cutting-edge active radar seeker and soft-launch system, with CAMM-ER featuring a larger rocket motor to provide extended range out beyond 40 km.”
CAMM and CAMM-ER form the basis for MBDA’s Enhanced Modular Air Defence Solutions (EMADS) offering. EMADS brings together systems and technologies from across MBDA’s European base to save time, development costs and provide a flexible system for air defence provision.
CAMM-ER, meant to replace the existing Aspide munition, is expected to be integrated in the Air Defence system of the Italian Air Force and Italian Army. CAMM-based air defence systems are known as Land Ceptor and Sea Ceptor by the British Army and Royal Navy.
The Italian Navy is also evaluating how to include the missile family with its future surface combatants.
Good news. I really hope that the SeaCeptor silos going into T26 and T31 are being sized to be able to take an ER canister if required, not only for the flexibility to add CAMM-ER to the mix if the U.K. ever went that route but also because if that was the size constraint that MBDA could work within for a VLS spear3 it could probably give it a quite significant range that could be very useful for ground support operations.
As an aside, CAMM for the RN is ”Sea Ceptor”, Aster is “Sea Viper” (although I think that’s the whole PAAMS name). Has a snappy U.K. name for Spear 3 been created/announced yet? Surely we’re going to need that before it comes into service! When the time comes I hope they come up with something more inspiring than Seaslug (for instance) for Spear3 – a great missile deserves a great name.
It may be too late for CAMM-ER on the first three RN T26, but I think a mix of CAMM & CAMM-ER on the next five would be wise, given the number of anti ship missiles out there.
Would the CAAM-ER not fit in the MK41 Silos ?
When operated from ExLS or MK 41 VLSD, CAMM comes in a quad-pack arrangement which allows to store and fire 4 missiles from a single cell which I think is a better way to go using the mk 41 vls much more versatile then a vls that can just launch camm
But Mk 41 launchers are much bigger & heavier than dedicated launchers for CAMM, which can be fitted into spaces too small for Mk 41, fitted higher up on a ship, etc.
If you’re always going to carry at least x CAMM, it’s a waste of money, space & weight to fit Mk 41s to hold them. Flexibility is only useful if it’s likely to be used & doesn’t need something of more value to be sacrificed. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself.
It should be well with in range for mk 41 vls to fit aleast 3 camm-er
It should do mate, have the Ceptor-ER on board is a huge advantage so common sense should prevail here…… we’ll see…
I was thinking along much the same lines, but you took it a step further regarding the VLS Spear3! RUSI recently wrote a paper suggesting containerised VLS SDB-IIs as a solution for up-arming the littoral support ships and various other amphibious vessels we have; I’s imagine the same role for VLS Spear3 (but better).
Forgive me, but replying to your question below here regarding size: The best I can find is from Janes, which states that the external dims of the missile have been increased to include a longer-burn rocket motor. However, it apparently can still use the same launcher. They seem to differentiate canister (the individual bit tha tthe missile is in) from launcher (the platform which holds the canisters for launch). For Land Ceptor, the launcher carries 12 canisters, while the CAMM-ER version for Italy carries 8. I’d assume, therefore (although it’s not explicitly stated anywhere), that the additoinal width of cannisters means fewer can be carried but the length isn’t significant enough to require a launch vehicle change.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem for the RN, they have enough VLS tubes on board that a double- or triple-pack of longer range missiles would be desirable. For the army, I’m not so sure; they only have 32 cannisters (two launch vehicles) in a battery, so cutting that by 1/3 would be a significant decrease in their ability to cope with drone swarm attacks or a battle space full of Russian attack helos and fast jets.
From what I can see, CAMM-ER would make a great package for the T31, T26 and T45. Providing greater area air defence capabilities for the T31 and T26 is a no-brainer and gives them greater capability to operate more independently (particularly the lone T31 to be forward deployed in Bahrain). For the T45, it provides greater magazine depth as a replacement for Aster-15.
https://www.janes.com/article/81000/extended-air-defence-es18d4
Did the MoD ever buy Aster-15?
I do like the idea of small land attack missiles. But I would prefer investment in (or additional investment in) in a system like Vulcano for the gun. We can but dream of T31 going to sea with a medium gun at A and B providing supporting fires for operations ashore.
That’s a good question. I assumed they did, as they are supposed to be the short range part of the PAAMS system, and you’re supposed to have both to cover all the engagement envelopes. Wikipedia (I know, not the authority, but hey) says the T45s carry a mix of both, so I’ll go with it for now. CAMM-ER actually outperforms Aster-15 by most metrics and is not dissimilar in dimensions, so would make for a logical replacement of an older missile, while increasing commonality of components in inventory (seeker, fusing, warhead etc.)and increasing magazine depth.
I get what you say about advanced gun rounds, but I’d say they’re more of a luxury than missile systems. I know that they can come in cheaper by round than a missile (ignoring the Zumwalt’s advanced rounds that were $800,000 a pop).
But a containerised VLS can be fitted to way more vessels (including RFA, Rivers, the proposed converted freighter we want to use for SF) without significant cost or signalling that we have a long range stirke capability in the area. Unless we’re talking a containerised Mk45 5″ naval gun (which I’m not sure is possible, due to the need for depth for the ammunition feed system), you don’t get that level of utility and low-profile.
In addition, Spear 3 has a 160 km range, from a soft-launch VLS that’s still likely to be over 100 km. The guided long range Vulcano that can be fired from a Mk45 goes out to 90 km.
I’m not against long range guided munitions in 5″, or for the T31 to get a bigger gun, but I’d personally see that as a secondary priority to a containerised VLS mini missile. Having said that, the topic is surely open to debate, and neither of them are currently on the cards for the RN unfortunately…!
These super duper fancy rounds for main armament guns are a waste of time and money in my opinion. Putting resources into quality missiles is a much better option and leave the main gun for bombardment.
The issue of Aster 15 has been discussed here before – according to an article on the Save The Royal Navy site it is indeed part of a T45’s inventory – it gave a mix ratio of something like 30 x Aster 30 and 18 x Aster 15.Also the point was made here that the Aster 15 is a Superior Missile compared to CAAM due to better Manoevering tech and other differences ,I’m sure others can say definitively.
Correct, the Aster 15/30 is slightly more capable than the SeaCeptor/Camm missile in one aspect. The Aster is much more manoeuvrable, especially in the terminal phase. This is because there are small jets (pif-paf) fitted in the missile body. These fire out perpendicularly and can literally throw the missile at the target.
The Camm missile is based on the ASRAAM, which is designed to fired before the other opponent is within their IR missile firing envelope, thus given an ASRAAM equipped pilot a better chance of a kill, but also allowing them more time to evade the return shot.
To give the missile the additional range it has a larger rocket than say an IRIS-T, thus also giving it more initial velocity. The missile has a very aerodynamically efficient body to reduce drag. But by doing so has given up on its ability to turn tightly. The IRIS-T uses the same seeker, but is designed as a knife-fighting missile. It favours the ability to turn tightly as the additional strakes give it more lift and control, but at the expense of drag, so is a lot shorter ranged. It is a bit of a moot point where IRIS-T can do a 60g turn, ASRAAM is perhaps around 40g, still more than any pilot or aircraft can do.
If future versions of CAMM, where the electronics can be made smaller, there could be space available to install pif-paf jets This would give the missile the ability to turn much tighter and thus near the same manoeuvring capabilities as Aster or IRIS-T.
I can say with certainty that the Army’s launchers are sized with CAM-ER in mind. I would be extremely surprised if the Navy had not also taken this consideration.
I thought Italy pulled funding for CAMM-ER, I take it mbda is paying for the rest of the developent itself. I still think the UK will take the cheapest option and go for CAMM but it will be interesting to see what everyone else opts for. I think Brazil, Chile and New Zealand are already signed up as export customers. It would be good to bring Australia and Canada on board but I think they are committed to ESSM.
Switching to the ER version for land ceptor, would significantly improve its ability to not only work as a point defence but also wide area. My feeling is the current version is way too short a range to be truly effective in a shooting war.
I know what you mean, however the CAMM-ER is larger than CAMM.
This is based upon a Janes article, which says ER is bigger but the two missiles can use the same launcher (they differentiate between the canister for the missile and launcher for carrying the cannisters). For Land Ceptor, the launcher carries 12 canisters, while the CAMM-ER version for Italy carries 8. I’d assume, therefore (although it’s not explicitly stated anywhere), that the additional width of cannisters means fewer can be carried but the length isn’t significant enough to require a launch vehicle change.
For the army, this may be a problem; they only have 32 cannisters (two launch vehicles) in a battery, so cutting that by 1/3 would be a significant decrease in their ability to cope with drone swarm attacks or a battle space full of Russian attack helos and fast jets. As these are the most likely combat scenarios at present, and those targets are intended to be difficult to spot until they’re close (the drones and helos at least), I’d say the range is worth trading for more missiles. It’s still 3 times better than Rapier’s range.
I remember the same but I think I also remember reading a subsequent announcement that Italy got back on board. That might be my memory playing tricks on me but it seems to be moving forward anyway so that is good news.
Mbda prob told them if they didn’t fund it they would sack their entire workforce and find someone else willing to pay for it. I don’t understand why France is funding a replacement Mica vls through mbda. Can they not just license produce it if they want to keep jobs instead of fund nearly identical missiles through the same company.
Am I reading this right? …
“ CAMM-ER is the extended range member of the new-generation CAMM air defence family of weapons. … with CAMM-ER featuring a larger rocket motor to provide extended range out beyond 40 km.”
I’m thinking now that I never actually seen it stated but perhaps had just assumed, because of Aster 15/30, that CAMM-ER was regular a CAMM with a secondary booster strapped to the back as per Aster 30. Reading the above about a “larger rocket motor” however makes me wonder whether CAMM-ER is, like regular CAMM, also a single stage missile(*) just a bigger one. Can anyone clarify that for me please?
(*) Single stage is ignoring the thruster pack at the end which is used to orient the missile after it is soft-launched and I think (but might well be wrong) is then jettisoned. Is that correct?
CAMM uses a small rocket motor, that once it has been expelled from the canister, turns the missile to face the incoming threat, before the main rocket takes over. My understanding based on earlier reports, was that it was this booster/turning rocket that is enlarged on the CAMM-ER and that the main part of the missile is the same as CAMM.
Thanks. That would certainly make a lot of sense if my understanding is right that the turning mechanism is jettisoned after use on the original CAMM. Replace one small jettisoned component (the thruster ring) with a much larger jettisoned component (booster with thruster ring incorporated). Presumably though that “booster/turning rocket” is very significantly “enlarged” for ER vs the basic CAMM component which, again if I have understood it correctly, is quite a small component with 4(?) quite small outward-facing thrusters to provide the orientation thrust before being jettisoned and the main engine igniting.
The body of the missile itself is also wider before tapering back down at the head. I expect most of the internals are the same just more fuel capacity and larger booster.
Great capability upgrade. hope these will be included in the T31 missile mix & I’d love to see them added to the QE CVAs too, as they’re badly underarmed.
This is an Italian only project mainly to replace their land based Aspide system,there is no chance the UK will use it as the standard missile meets the requirements of the RN and Army.
It’s basically the front end of the CAAM with a new Italian developed rocket replacing the modified ASRAAM motor.
Not sure how accurate this is but looks like a good comparison -https://www.mbda-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/camm_camm_er_white_seeker-900×500.jpg
To clarify one or two things:
CAMM-ER is a joint UK/Italian project being conducted under a MOU signed by both governments. The development of the missile is entirely funded by Italy but production of the missiles components will take place in both countries. The agreement covers the workshares for a possible future Italian purchase and also for any future 3rd party or UK buys.
CAMMs combined shipping and launch container’s cross section is constrained by the diagonal width of the folded base fins. The fins are the same on both the standard CAMM and the ER so the launch containers have the same cross section for both missiles. However the ER container is about one meter longer.
It is frequently asked, will the Lockheed Martin ExLs VLS will be able to launch ER. AFAIK, no one has definitively answered the question. It’s all a matter of length: is EXLs deep enough to container the longer ER. Too close to call from photographs.
It is not obvious that ER is a better choice for the type 31 and 26 frigates. They cost more, require more volume for their launchers, have a greater minimum range (ie cannot engage an incoming missile as close to the ship as the standard CAMM), and perhaps most important of all, the extra range adds nothing of use. Standard CAMM has sufficient range to intercept a supersonic sea skimming missile , the most demanding target, that is first detected the instant it breaks the radar horizon. What use is
longer range?
A good question, if it’s not needed then don’t buy it, spend the money on something that is needed. Basic commissioning skills 101.
Thanks Ron for you explanation.
I apologise if this is a stupid question, but could you explain why the Italian army feels they need the er version, while the British army are happy with the standard version?
Are the Italians really only interested in the er version for their airforce and the army will get whatever the airforce wants.
Thanks
Hi,
You are forgetting that both Sea Ceptor and Sea Viper can get target updates in flight. These are normally provided by the ship that fired the missile. However the missiles can be updated by Other platforms, for example AEW assets, other ships or aircraft. In practice this means thar as long as a platform in the network can see the target the missile can be given its location. The missile can then get close enough to use its own radar to complete tge engagement. So missiles like ASTER 30 and Sea Ceptor ER can engage beyond the ships radar horizon. This makes Sea Cepror ER a potentially valuable assets. This is especially true when Faced with supersonic anti ship sea skimming missiles that need to be engaged at range and as soon as possible.
If your argument held ASTER 30 would be of no more use then ASTER 15 or standard Sea Ceptor which is just not the case. Although the capability has not been advertised I am sure ASTER 30 can be targeted using data links from Crowsnest AEW, F35 and other ships…
Hope this helps.
Rob
Not at all. There is no plan to fit any platform other than the type 26 and type 31s with CAMM datalinks. So your idea is nice but not happening. I agree that it is much more likely to be added to PAAMS.
As for the italian army, perhaps they have a requirement to knock down high fliers. CAMM-ER has extra altitude to go along with its increase in range.
Trials have been conducted between a F35 and a T45. Where the F35 provided targeting information for the T45’s Sea Viper system. One of the trials was done off West Scotland, so you could assume that Qinetiq’a range was involved and perhaps a UAV target drone.
As both the Sea Ceptor and Viper have a data link, I am not sure if the F35 could take control of the missile or if this must still be done through the ship. It would be a major advantage if the aircraft could take control of the missile after firing. The Meteor missile has the capability to be controlled by another asset (ship/aircraft) other than the firing aircraft.
No f-35 is equipped with a CAMM datalink.
They have link 16 which is good enoughr..
You cannot communicate with the missile using link 16.
The target position can be fed to the ship and the missile fired then it gets on the track of the target over the radar horizon to intercept the incoming target with its own radar.
The CAMM datalink from ship to missile is line of site. Does not work over the horizon.
Sea Ceptor has an autopilot that uses target data to fly an intercept rout and then use its own radar to localise the target and kill it. It does NOT need the data link to intercept – it helps but it does not need it.
So the missile is quite capable of intercepting non line of sire.
It appear odd to me that the manufacturer of a NEW cutting edge naval missile would not make it as compatible as possible with existing systems. I do not know enough about the Sea Ceptor data link but would be shocked if it could not read link 16.
That would only work if the missile remained in the same location from detection until the CAMM was close enough to locate with it’s own radar. Clearly that is not going to happen.
Be shocked, the CAMM datalink does not support link 16.
We should be buying this missile for the UK air defence instead of the short range one. other European countries (e.g. France, Italy), have medium to long range SAMs protecting their national airspace. We have short range systems that are protecting the military not the country as a whole.
I think this is a massive gap in our capabilities give Russian advances in cruise missiles…
The Russians installed their finest air defence systems in Syria, and they are supposed to be some of the best in the world, cost billions of roubles. In the cruise missile attack by the uk and us with rather elderly tomahawk missiles, the Russians shot down zero.
I agree we should have a dedicated shore based medium to long range missile system. But I think it should be based on the PAAMs system, using a Sampson fixed panel array and using Aster 30NT/BMD.
Israel have proven that the Syrian air defences can be taken out. They have destroyed at least two of the much feared Pantsir short range air defence system. Perhaps just as importantly they have been able to neutralise the Syrian S300 system. It can’t be said if this is done to poor handling by the Syrian crews or the Israelis have found a weakness and exploited it. I suspect its a combination of a lot of factors. What is worrying though is that Syria/Russia/Iran have now a complete David’s Sling missile in their possession, that failed to detonate on command. This missile has the very latest technology and is combat proven. It may be difficult though for Russia to replicate some of the components that the missile uses, especially its tracking system.
It was bizarre or was there a higher level political agreement that prevented Russia from using their S400 system to stop the Tomahawk/SCALP strikes. The Russians did say they tracked some of the missiles, though! Their Pantsir system protecting Khmeimim airbase definitely shot down a large number of drone swarms throughout 2018.
You need to spend less time reading Russian web sites.
Correct, however, just as they reprogrammed the multi-function advanced data link to transmit and receive Link-16 data. They could theoretically do the same for the CAMM data-link.
That would require the aircraft to have a CAMM datalink which it does not have.
Sea Ceptor is billed as a network enabled system, capable of getting updates from multiple platforms. So I can only assume it will be integrated into the RN network. I am sure that Crowsnest will be able to talk to the missile. Even if this is not done directly the AEW can spot targets at range then an intercept platted for Sea Ceptor before launch and then the missile will localise the target with its own radar. So long range OTH engagements are possible with both Sea Ceptor and ASTER.
However I cannot see the RN not sorting out data links to make full use of the missile. Perhaps Sea Ceptor data links are compatible with link 16. F35, Crowsnest AEW, T45 all have link 16 or a compatible equivalent.
I include the following off the manufacturers fact sheetl’The use of third party target information from the wider battle space network allows the system to engage targets that are non line-of-sight from the local launcher or sensors.’.
So it sounds like the missile can work with a wide network of platforms NOT just ones on T23’s etc. Just because it does not have a dedicated Sea Ceptor uplink in line of sight does not mean it cannot get data from other platforms.
I think the manufacturer should know what their system can do. If they say their missile can work with third-party data I beleave them…
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm/
The CAMM missile can accept course updates over its datalinks from platforms equipped with CAMM datalinks. In the RN, only two such platforms are planned: type 26 & type 31 frigates.
Plus of course the existing type 23s.
Your imagination does you credit,
If this is the case then the RN/MoD’s lack of imagination does not do them credit. They should be buying kit that can network across the fleet. This is VERY short sighted. Crowsnest AEW should have the required data links. Also T45 should have the ability to update Sea Ceptor.
Alternatively Sea Ceptor should be modified to accept link 16 data.
Not making full use of the missile for the sake of the right communications is not cost effective or wise.
I am still not convinced that Sea Cepror can only accept data from their own dedicated data links. The manufacturers comments appear to suggest the missile has a wider capability.
Yes ASTER is the better Choice and what the French have.
Does that mean the “Ceptor” will become the “Ceptor-ER”??
I’m hoping that the RN’s Ceptor will receive this upgrade, having a greater range capability at sea is a mahoosive bonus.
Not when shooting down sea skimming anti ship missiles.
maybe just ‘cept-ER’