MBDA has been awarded a contract to equip the Brazilian Navy’s new Tamandaré-class frigates with the Sea Ceptor air defence missile system.

Sea Ceptor utilises the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM), it offers close-in air defence and local-area air defence.

MBDA claims that the missile has a “wide target set”, including the capability to engage small naval vessels, which would give the missile a limited surface-to-surface role.

According to a news release from the firm:

“Sea Ceptor is a smart weapon control system (WCS) that together with the fully-active Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) provides comprehensive self-defence and local area air defence (LAAD). This will enable Brazil’s Tamandaré-class frigates to protect themselves, consorts and fixed infrastructure against the full range of threat types at sea or in harbour, and in the most stressing operational scenarios.”

Sea Ceptor is currently in service on the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates, and will also protect the new Type 26 frigates and Type 31 frigates!

Brazil joins Chile, New Zealand and Canada in a growing list of international Sea Ceptor users.

The CAMM missile has also been delivered to the British Army in the Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) role. The Ministry of Defence maintains a common stockpile of CAMM missiles for both the Royal Navy and British Army. On land, CAMM is known as Land Ceptor by the British Army and the whole land-based air defence system is known as Sky Sabre.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

138 COMMENTS

  1. That’s excellent news it seems to be getting traction which can only be positive for future sales and developments.

      • Ok, we wait. But what is an Apache missile and why is the MoD making a mistake when Brazil is ordering these proven and effective systems?

        If you mean JAGM I hope it’s effective at its job and quite capable even if it’s not Brimstone.

        • wait so why are we using JAGM when we could use brimstone or Spear3? don’t the latter have longer ranges, therefore you don’t have to get closer to the enemy thus safer?

          • Why spend scarce tens or even hundreds of millions integrating a weapon on a fleet of 50 Apache E? JAGM was designed around the latest apache and the US will buy it in huge numbers so costs will fall. An Apache hugging the treeline avoiding enemy air defence doesn’t need a bespoke weapon over 10km range such as Spear 3, not for the mission of supporting a UK Armoured brigade against a peer opponent. The report when it was selected suggested the British army would end up firing over 750 JAGM in a 24 hour period, so it will need to be a cheaper missile that is produced in large batches for several decades.

          • Thx for the rationale. Good post. If as looks likely Warrior goes without a direct replacement then Apache / missile numbers are more important.

          • I take the points.
            But we’re banking on Lockheed Martin’s promise that it will be significantly cheaper in future full-rate production (they’re $325k/unit at the moment, and the target is apparently Hellfire Romeo costs, which are about $150k per unit if you’re wrapping it with a support package. Would you trust LM if they told you they could decrease the cost of an advanced weapon system by 60%? I wouldn’t). That has hardly gone well for us in the past.
            Also, the US Army is trialling Spike N-LOS on their Apaches (the version with the 25 km range and man-in-the-loop guidance, a lot like Brimstone, in fact), because they need a missile that can be fired from a safe distance and cued onto target by other platforms (like the drones that AH-64Es can control, for example). If the US Army sees the value in a longer ranged missile than JAGM, then I think we should too.

          • The prices I’ve seen for Brimstone also include development costs…which have obviously already been spent…
            It’s a bonkers decision, it also ignores the potential for export orders. Brimstone integration (and LMM/Starstreak) should have been a condition of our purchase of Apache E.

          • Hard bargaining, with Boeing, or any other US entity?! This is some groundbreaking thinking you’re proposing…
            I agree, Brimstone would be a good competitor to the US Army’s N-LOS requirement too- it wouldn’t harm JAGM’s chances necesssarily in a High/Low mix.
            I hadn’t really thought about your approach, but we could potentially have pushed a similar one for Stingray integration with P-8A? After all, we have just issued them no-competition contracts for Apache, Chinook and P-8A!

          • All of you have said Joe, coupled to the fact that we are buying into a ‘promise’ that missile costs will come down due to economies of scale!!
            This from a company who have a poor track record of delivering on promises and costs (Crowsnest, Warrior turret and F35 spring to mind),.
            Of course, there is nothing to be read into the fact that the US military have asked for some 4500 Hellfire and only 750ish JAGMs in the next financial year if reports from across the pond are to be believed!!!

          • Quite, a missile that is still not technically out of its development yet; I don’t believe that they’ve shown that it can be launched by fast movers, which is one of its capabilities (that we already have in Brimstone). So they’re targetting a significant economies saving when they haven’t even closed out the development costs.
            One of the army’s big arguments is that, in a serious shooting war, we’d have the benefit of a larger common stock of weapons (i.e. borrow from the US). But that strikes me as a justification for not keeping enough inventory- and the US would quite understandably ensure that their units were sufficiently supplied before looking to us. Besides, there’s nothing stopping us using those US stockpiles once our Brimstones ran out, seeing as they’re already integrated on the airframe. No one would care that our pilots hadn’t test fired them before in a SHTF situation where we’re expending 750 missiles a day.
            There’s no reason that I can see for not including Brimstone in our AH-64E’s armament, other than a puzzling switch to maximally risk-averse procurement in the instance of the least risky procurement programme on the army’s books.
            To be honest, I don’t know that it is the least risky, but we’re talking about signing off on the integration of a missile that has been in military service for ~5 years, onto a platform (admittedly upgraded version) that we have been operating for a decade plus, which has already successfully test fired the missile.

          • Yes, got to agree it’s really quite bizarre. Ignore a tried and tested product that covers the requirements, instead select something that doesn’t, needs 2 missiles to cover what one can do, all for some potential unknown future savings!!! Yes it’s all about money I know but really…..
            It is also slightly irritating to know that the US could have saved themselves shed loads of grief and cash by purchasing B2 years ago rather then proceeding with JAGM! If they had, we would have seen the cost of B2 come down accordingly, that would be now, not perhaps sometime in the future.
            They are very protectionist when it comes to the procurement of military equipment (Meteor is another example), it always seems it’s ok for us to buy from them but not the other way around even if the other equipment is on a par or better!!!

          • The US is easily as protectionist of its military industries as France- the idea of pure unrestrained capitalism and the best product winning through and all that is a bit of a hall of mirrors!
            The Government procurement section of this report, pages 5-7, lays it out quite clearly- and makes any claim by Boris of a balanced trade deal with the US another example of his trademark bluster and political spin…
            https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/IndustrialpolicyintheUnitedStates.pdf

          • I agree. Protectionism makes industry uncompetitive, the US industry is able to dominate in many areas because they have a guaranteed home market. But the US products are not always the best performance or cost effective.

            The European partnerships via MBDA are an excellent compromise, because it allows MBDA to achieve economy of scale, while also focusing on a wider range of national interests, which makes their products highly competitive both in performance and cost.

          • If you think about it though, it makes sense. If conventional hostilities break out, they will be most likely in the Asian or European theaters. You want to keep as much of your defense production as native as possible to limit delays, interruptions, and destruction in times of conflict. You also want to back companies that employ your citizens in trained specialties that are hard to replace. It also keeps the enormous amounts of money spent on the weapons more or less in YOUR economy.

            Its not done simply out of “our stuff is better than yours, it’s a legitimate security precaution.

      • Do you really think the Americans would’ve sold us those Apaches cheap if there wasn’t money in the follow on sales for equipment, you can either have cheap Apaches with American missiles or expensive Apaches with UK tech

        • Agreed. Countless times people moan that we buy an American product, and then waste millions adapting it with British tech and weapons. Well, this time we haven’t. And we will receive battle winning capability far cheaper and quicker, and better value for the British tax payer. Sometimes it does make sense to buy off the shelf. Other capabilites need to be home grown to protect out own industries. Buying ApacheE & JAGM isn’t one of them.

          • I don’t question the Apache buy, that makes great sense. We have little in the way of a domestic helicopter industry other than AW/Leonardo, and I’d rather see them building more Merlin (one can dream…). We certainly don’t have the capacity to be developing a clean sheet attack helicopter.
            But to me, the whole point of the buy British industrial strategy is that we support industry where we have a viable system- and we absolutely do in Brimstone. Weapons integration is a pretty normal and low-risk exercise compared to the development of the platform itself. Even more so when you’re not going for internal carriage, the platform is in service and well understood, the missile is in service and well understood, has already been successfully test launched from the platform, and its form factor is based upon a missile already integrated into the platform (although internally different, my understanding is that the external dimensions and weight are largely the same between Brimstone and Hellfire).
            The RN has selected Marltet and Sea Venom for their helicopters and integrated them onto a virtually custom platform (Wildcat is not a very widely used platform) on time and in budget (as far as I’m aware); pursuing a Buy British agenda in the relatively low-risk area of weapons integration. The RAF is doing the same with Meteor and Spear 3 on F-35B. Yet the Army tries to take the absolute lowest risk approach to acquisition on the already lowest risk part of the Apache programme- going against published government policy in doing so. I appreciate that this is probably a reaction to the poor performance of their other vehicle programmes at the moment, but I honestly don’t think it does them any favours.

          • I totally understand what you mean, but weapons integration isn’t quick or simple. Look how long it took to get Typhoon updated to carry StormShadow and Brimstone, which have been in service for years. It’s probably the same reason we have used Hellfire on our Reaper fleet. Sometimes it’s the low risk option that makes sense, and gets great kit to the front line quicker. To many times we have wasted time and millions adapting something British to anther nations product. Yes we are doing it with F35 & Typhoon. But I think with Apache, this is the correct choice.

          • I think you are right, there is no one size fits all answer here. Another factor to consider, is that aligning with US potentially gives UK emergency access to the much larger US stockpile.

            For Apache, where there isn’t really a European equivalent, aligning with US makes sense. Typhoon and F35 make more sense for indigenous capabilities because the fleets are much larger and many nations are using them.

  2. First time Sea Ceptor is integrated into a smaller warship. Big opportunity as the soft launch system does not require expensive hot launch VLS systems and the missile is sensor agnostic and can be cued by other vessels with more powerful radars.

    • Hi James, the Kiwis have a 20 CAMM setup on their Anzac Meko 200 frigates where there old Sea Sparrow VLS use to be. It would be interesting to see how much room their 20 format takes compared to RN 2*6 silos.
      I’d also like to see a Sea Based ASRAAM in a RAM style launcher as an option where VLS or Sioo CAMM isn’t used.

  3. OMG the Brazillian ships will only have 12 cells!

    How are they going to survive Regimental Backfire raids or go up against the Chinese air force on their own?

    For that matter they havent got TLAMs either and so wont be able to stike Xingxang province. At least if they had a large calibre gun or land attack missiles they could support Brazillian troops ashore, taking out fortifications, artillery, vehicles and so on. Plus a mere 4 SSMs of moderate range, what kind of deterance to an enemy is that, how will they sink the enemy fleet with such a paltry number!

    Utter madness, what are the Brazillians thinking !?!

    Sigh.
    Good to see Sea Ceptor doing better than its predecessor. Pity the ships weren’t with us though.

    • Very good.

      You forgot the 16” triple turrets which were missed off……..

      Back to the real world.

      Thing is with Ceptor is that it is a relatively simple, all modern, system that does not have loads of legacy cabinets and subsystems grandfathered onto it.

      So it is easier to understand the fit and ongoing maintenance costs.

      A lot of the competitor systems are patchwork quits tracing roots back – the brochure always say ‘fully re-designed’ but you will find some bits in there from way back when.

    • Excellent thanks Rogbob, made my day! On a serious note, perhaps thy have provision to take on additional missiles in a high threat crisis i.e. the standard line of ” fitted for 24 but equipped with 12″

    • Well said Rogbob.

      Its maybe ok for ‘Jonny Foreigner’ to go to war with this meagre load out but not us plucky Brits ! Saying that, the Brazilian Rivers have more bangsticks than ours Grrrrr  😡 

  4. That’s good news for exports. What is very interesting is that MBDA now say the missile does have an ability to engage surface targets, where as before they always said it was a possibility that could be developed.

    • While a shame, not necessarily the wost thing to happen; the more radar systems that are proven to work with CAMM, the better for future sales.

      • Indeed so. Also it seems the Tamandare uses an Embraer CMS so Ceptor looks easy to integrate, though I have to say I don’t know that much about these interfaces.

        • Ah, another CMS too, that’s cool!
          Like you, I’m no expert. It’s normally about having two lists of inputs (separate information that either the missile or CMS needs) with the “addresses” of where those inputs can be found- one list for the missile and one for the CMS. The respective engineers then go away and make sure that the missile can send the required input information to the correct CMS addresses and vice versa. That’s about as far as my software integration understanding goes, and I’m sure the input lists are as long as both my arms, so I’d expect it to be a bit more complicated than that!

        • I don’t know much about CMS but I wouldn’t assume that it’s easy. It’s worth noting that the Brazilians are much more technically advanced than most, given the size of their economy.

          Embraer produce several FBW aircraft, that are competitive with US and EU products in the global market. So I guess this step into CMS is a way to leverage their existing skills in systems development

          • No manufacturer specific radar is required it can use anything. Once the radar has picked up the target, the track extractors follow It and the command system displays it its then a sea ceptor problem.
            The missile fires and flies for a future intercept area in space where the target will be. Its tracked by the radar as is the target. Any updates to the missile are sent via the separate data link system. Its not a constant streaming update just course changes as and when required to get the missile into the same area as the target. When it’s close enough it then goes active and its down to the missile to hit the target using its own radar.
            The sea ceptor data link control cabinet is around the size of a fridge. In the old 911 tracker Offices it sits all alone in what is now a big empty space.

          • Thanks. Would you say Ceptor is a much easier task to integrate Vs legacy systems requiring constant target illumination? I know there is less equipment required but I was thinking in terms of all the connectivity and software etc. required to make it all work, reliably. I know active seeker has many advantages and it’s the way things are going, just wondering about the difficulty of building it into a complete weapons system with the radars and CMS etc.

          • On a T23 there are 3 redundant data highways(port, stbd on different decks and keel) that all information goes onto from all the systems on board. Between the individual systems and the highway is a conversion circuit card that converts the system info into a common format. If another system needs that info it removes the info in its common format from the highway and uses it.
            It makes integration a lot easier as you only need to convert data going onto the highway, not integrate a whole system into another system.
            That said also not needing illumination radars is a massive plus. A single Seawolf tracker had 2 x radars, missile up links for guidance signals to the in flight missiles ,powerful real-time computers to control the whole thing, numerous and varied electrics to move the trackers and power the systems, cooling systems, electro optics, Thim… And you could only engage 2 targets at a time.

          • This is only partially true. The 3 redundant CSH networks still exist but all the new kit like Sea Ceptor and Artisan are integrated directly onto the platform wide DTS network that Type 45, Type 26, and QEC also use.

            The principal is the same though, data is presented at a gateway in a defined format and it is up to the subscribing system to understand it.

          • Thinking about drones. Sea Ceptor has a quoted range of at least 25km. A medium altitude drone capable of launching a missile might be at an altitude of say 5 or 6km. Now just to be sure I understand things, and considering the total amount of KE necessary, can I interpret the MBDA spec that Ceptor can intercept a target at a distance of 25km at an altitude of 5km with still enough fuel to manoeuvre?

          • MBDA have published that SeaCeptor/LandCeptor has a range >25km. How much more than 25km is classified information and only those who operate it know fully. Though it was reported by some sources that the missile reached 60km following a ballistic path.

            What can be said is that the missile has an effective range of 25km against a highly maneuvering target. Which means at 25km the missile still retains enough kinetic energy to track and intercept the target, which will be flying erratically trying to throw off the lock. Therefore, From this I would deduce that a slow moving drone flying at 5km altitude at this range would be easy meat for the missile.

            The other point to note is that the range that MBDA quote does not include an interception height. This is deliberate to keep the “other side” guessing about the missile’s capabilities. All single stage rocket powered missiles will have an engagement envelope that looks a bit like a umbrella from the side. However, depending on the range to the target, they will either fly a direct path to the calculated interception point or for longer ranges use a ballistic path.

            If we are saying that SeaCeptor has a maximum effective range of 25km, then it will follow a ballistic path to a target at this range, as this is more efficient. Therefore, it will fall on to the target, using gravity to add to its kinetic energy. Which can also be used to increase the missile’s range.

  6. I’ve got a bit confused with this, the Canadians are using it as a point defence missle on their new frigates, yet we use it in the area defence role.
    So what’s its best role.

    • I think the arc of ESSM means its minimum engagement range is larger hence US /Nato ESSM users also mount RAM as CIWS.
      Soft launched Camm pivots far quicker, hence it dills that gap. So I read that its a case of Camm doing the CIWS job better than RAM as well as then supplementing ESSM which will reach greater altitude out to 50km than 25km Camm will.

    • “yet we use it in the area defence role.”

      No range for that.
      That is the most serious mistake of Type 26 (UK) having only CAMM. Lighter USN Frigates, Italian Frigates have area defence capability.

      CAMM-ER/ Aspide NG already have been sold to another country, it was suspected to be Brasil but with this news it seems to no be.

      Totally absent of above information is that Design Authority is joint MBDA UK and MBDA Italy
      “Based on the agreement signed in 2011 when the two MBDA companies (UK and Italia) decided to invest on the new GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence) for both national and export requirements, followed by the two UK and Italy Government statement of intent, the two nations recently signed the implementing agreement for system components and technologies workshare as well as export campaigns and rights. In addition to being the system co-design authority (with MBDA UK) and manufacturer of the seeker for the CAMM ER, MBDA Italia is also responsible for the design and production of the CAMM ER launcher system, PDLT and national land-based (Army and Air Force) air defence systems for the Italian MoD, as well as the other sub-components of the Albatros NG system. The CAMM ER ammunitions for national and international customers will be assembled in Italy with components supplied by MBDA group. More specifically, the locally produced seeker and radome will be sent to the UK where the front-end will be assembled and returned to Italy. Here, the missile will be assembled, including the warhead integration at the Italian MoD joint armed forces advanced ammunition centre (CIMA, Centro Interforze Munizionamento Avanzato) near La Spezia.”

      • But T26 does have Mk41.

        So in theory other existing weapons could be used. But why?

        I am not so sure that Ceptor is not an area weapon IRL.

        The range stated is likely conservative anyway.

        But 25km is a very decent umbrella to put over a small group of ships.

        I mean we do actually have proper dedicated state-of-the-art AAW Destroyers in T45 so I am at a loss as to what T26 has got to be made more expensive and complex (probably less good at its ASW task too) by being turn into a Swiss Army knife?

        • Exactly.

          For Canada the CSC is covering both AAW and ASW roles, they need this flexibility in their smaller fleet, due to having to operate in two oceans that are a very long trip in between.

        • anyways isn’t the new frigates ment to be fit for but not with. so latter upgrades could see the addition of camm-er or a better missile.

        • I disagree Suportive Bloke when missile ranges increase (more dangerous i think are even very small missiles) along with number of vectors.
          You can have a drone lobbing missiles from 20km and the Type 26 can’t do anything about it – as side note naval helicopters should have Anti-drone function and be equipped with AAM’s. I remind that small missiles like Spike are now capable of 30km range. So Chinese, Iranians, Russia will have that equivalent soon. if not already.
          Only 6 ships(so 4 operational at most) with area defence capability is a miserable number.

      • The Lt Col in charge of the Army’s Sky Sabre units recently stated on Twitter that they will be getting Camm-ER. It will be interesting to see how/where these will be constructed.

        • How does CAMM-ER work? Are they longer? Wider? Do they fit into their standard launch tube?
          I wonder if they’re modular enough to add extra lateral reaction jets for even more maneuverability?

          • The canister is longer, but every other dimension is the same as CAMM. The only differences are a wider, longer mid-body with strakes. This is where the larger rocket motor is.
            There’s nothing to stop an additional section being added after the guidance and warhead sections with ‘Pif-Paf’ direction control, but it would be increased cost, a longer missile and canister again, and a whole new series of trials would be required.

          • Don’t think CAMMs body is wide enough for pif-paf. Remember Aster is a huge missile by comparison.

          • It’s not a problem at all.
            Raytheon have designed their Peregrine missile with attitude control thrusters, the Dragon AT missile from decades ago used it as well.

          • When ASRAAM was on the drawing board as the joint NATO within visual range (WVR) missile. The US wanted the missile to have better end of engagement capability than Sidewinder. To do this the missile was going to have mid-body reaction jets (pig-paf). However, the US pulled out, followed by Germany each wanting to develop their domestic missile. Hence Sidewinder X and Iris-T respectively. The UK “stayed in the project” on their own, using what was on the drawing board, but removed the reaction jet section, instead using it for additional rocket motor fuel.

            Apart from using a larger diameter engine, the additional fuel significantly increased the missile’s range over Sidewinder. As the MoD believed that the additional range allowed an aircraft to shoot earlier but also remaining out of the opponent’s return fire envelope.

            It would be feasible to include a reaction jet section, but on the standard missile, it will cut down on its effective range. The ER version, because of the wider body and additional booster, this may be more doable.

        • Still having the same problem getting on to Army wavelength with their equipment decisions, again under caveat that it’s not my area.

          So, I can easily see CAMM-ER as a valid maritime option, but to umbrella an advancing land force under average european topographical conditions, I’d have thought a missile with ‘only’ 25km range was adequate for most circumstances. CAMM-ER is larger (both l×w) so must have a bigger logistical footprint – and cost, no doubt.

          Please see carte-blanche to ‘shoot me down’ on the land front, as some are happy to oblige (fair enough). But the army seems to try and reduce risk to an almost non-existent level by adding every conceivable option, to the point of impracticality. Therefore contributing to, at best, costly long delays and, at worst, even more costly failure. Examples here aren’t necessary, I’m sure.

          Closer to my interest, there is a lot of criticism of the RN for FFBNW, but the UK usually ends up with an asset it can work on, in service, over the longer timescale. Now, I know there is more space on a vessel, but the attempt to all-sing-and-dance with the Army seems out of kilter none the less.

          Regards

          • Depends on the aircraft & weapons you are facing. Eg JDAM-ER 500lb GPS / laser guided glide bomb – range 70+ km when launched from height. 25km will take out most helicopters or CAS fighters. Anyone prepared to stand off though, can use weapons like this & can really hammer you at relatively low cost. Even the standard JDAM has a range of around 28km, which is CAMM marginal. CAMM is unlikely to reach 70km with enough steam to hurt a jet aircraft. If you try to use CAMM to take out glide bombs, you are going to run out pretty fast, so best option is take out the launching aircraft. CAMM-ER shifts you from 25+ km to 45+ Km. I am understand current UK CAMM land launchers can handle both CAMM & CAMM-ER.

          • OK, thanks. Follow the rationale. I’d’ld had more confidence if we were starting from a position of 25 yrs worth of sage policy decisions, rather than ‘it’s going to be the biggest & best’….

            However, nothing would be more satisfying, and welcome on the national wallet, than hearing the GS/MOD had come good on project planning and delivery. Let’s start with good news on Ajax soon.

          • Ok, so I am a layman but things must have have moved on since WW2 Midway movies of kamikazi attacks. I’m thinking a radar with good resolving power combined with a computerized fire control system connected to a gun firing lots of programmable air burst ammunition would get it before it gets you.

          • Any director be it radar or electro optic will do. Programmable Ammo would drop something like a glide bomb in short order. You also wouldn’t need a lot of shots. A 5 round burst would do it.

            Appologies for being flippant… It was ginoclock here when I answered!

          • The biggest problem is most armies don’t have much in the way of gun based AA anymore. Using missiles to shoot down glide bombs also works, but unsustainable. Also note that IR based missiles like Mistral won’t work. US systems like Phalanx, often used to protect bases from rockets & mortars would work. The problem for guns is relatively short range. If the gun is not where you are, it’s unlikely to help.

            The only service that regularly uses gun based AA as part of the mix is the navy & with the navy, the gun is where you are.

          • While a 25km range would be ok for slow moving tracked formations, a boxer battle group is meant to move in a dispersed formation over a 100km front. The ER version could potentially cover these units, but we probably need more VSHorad as well.

            I agree that a major difference is that the navy always plan for upgrades to happen. The army want a vehicle from day 1 that will last 30 years without upgrades, but still be potent.

          • Yes, then there is the strategy regarding networked air assets overall. If you’re defending Europe and you’re down to whether the missile has a better range then you could be in a bit of bother. Whereas in an expeditionary force, that may be your main air asset. Though you could still choose ER to suit, no doubt.

            Just hope it’s not gold plating, in all practical sense, because it’s available i.e. fits in cost-efficiently with your other assets, as Gamed.

            Follow you on where it’s built if ER is pretty much under MBDA Italy, though. As you say: interesting.

          • If I recall correctly, CAMM falls under MBDA’s Europe-wide agreements with regards centres of excellence for different portions of advanced weapons systems (same as Meteor, Brimstone, Spear, Martlet, Sea Venom, FC/ASW, etc. Not sure about Aster, I think that predates the agreement).
            Basically, the UK, France and Italy each have certain elements of a missile that they concentrate on- I think the UK has guidance and seekers, for example. For any MBDA product, that portion of the missile will be developed and built in that country, guaranteeing market share for all partner nations on any project and also encouraging those nations to jointly develop and buy the weapons systems because they all have insutrial benefit. So, yes, CAMM-ER may be led by Italy because they had the primary requirement, but it’s the same as us with Meteor.

          • Afternoon, Joe.

            Fed off AlexS reply to James H, above. I know, it gets a bit confusing (as does the source’s explanation quoted, to be honest, since I lost track halfway through) as strings lengthen. Perhaps a unique ref # would ease!

            Cheers, anyway.

          • Don’t forget LandCeptor can only fire from a fixed location, i.e. the truck stopped and secured, with the launcher fully erected. It can’t fire on the move. Therefore a Boxer group could easily move beyond the 25km protective bubble. The ER version gives a bit more leeway.

          • Or would it be better to get a land based Aster 30-SAMP/T system for >100km coverage. Or copy the Italians and get a mix of Aster 30-SAMP/T and camm-er

    • I may be imagining things but IIRC I read that Ceptor was originally bid for AD for the CSC program.

      RCN then selected ESSM, but they realised that Ceptor met their PD spec, so they asked MBDA to re-bid for PD instead. Or maybe it was MBDA that noticed and re-bid, something like that anyway.

      So it’s not really a reflection of the relative performance of Ceptor, for AD or PD. Rather it’s a question of how well it fitted in the requirements that were set by RCN in their RFP for each capability.

      • Canada was already an existing ESSM user & part of the ESSM consortium (a bit like the F35 consortium, except ESSM works as advertised). CAMM does not compete with ESSM, CAMM-ER does. CAMM is midway between RAM & ESSM for range, but has a RAM like minimum engagement range.

        • Yep, CAMM does not really fit in the brackets. I think MDBA call it a ‘Local’ Area Defence weapon to indicate that it has AD capability but with shorter range. So it ends up being essentially a very high performance PD/CIWS or a cheap basic AD.

  7. When Brazil starts buying our Type 23s as they go out of service it means they can be sold complete with with Sea Ceptor without any problems.

    • Infortunetly, we probably won’t buy type 23… Our navy, about 2006-2008 start to think only on “megalomaniac” mode. They think we are a superpower, that our budget will be increased forever and so on…
      Our current status, otherwise, are: we have more people in navy than Italy and UK together. We have 5 operational submarines… but 2 of then are permanently out, needing an extensive maintance(cut and all) that we have no money to pay, in the same time we have 4 new submarines being completed.
      Brazilian Navy is a mess and our spine will be 4 Tamandaré-class, corvettes that they happen to call frigates, even if it weights half than one FREMM.
      ps: Navy only accept to buy used vessel on the case of HMS Ocean… because our navy have A HUGE fetisch on things they can call “aircraft carrier”. Also, they change the first name of “Porta-Helicópteros Multipropósito”(wich means Hericopter carrier multipurpose) to “Navio Aerodromo Multipropósito'(Aircraft Carrier vessel multipurpose), THE SAME way we called in the past NAe(Navio Aeródromo) São Paulo, OUR TRUE aircraft carrier.

      • Doesn’t sound good….but I suspect 23s will be offered to Brazil and Chile at bargain basement prices to replace existing old Type 22s. The Sea Ceptor contract will include maintenance and upkeep support services.

    • Is that before or after they fall apart?

      The T23’s are being worked very very hard at an age where they were EoL already. OK a lot of the guts of them has been replaced including a lot of plate but there does come a point where they are so knackered that nobody else will be interested.

      The really odd thing was the lack of interest in the BIII T22’s which did have hull life left in them and were in decent nick.

      • True, but Brazil still has a couple of Type 22 batch 1s in service……over the years we have sold many ‘worn out ships that have gone on to spend many years in service with Foreign navies. Come to think of it HMS Ocean was one of them….

          • Indeed, the longest serving aircraft carrier ever which spent the biggest part of her life with the Indian Navy……

        • Yup but we sold them the BI’s when they were still in great nick.

          HMS Ocean was sold at the end of it’s RN hull life. It was not LIFEXD.

          I would, honestly, have been terrified of just sailing in Hermes in recent years. I dread to think what would have happened in a real conflict situation with something that had tinworm that advanced. I take my hat off to the Indians for keeping Hermes floating for so long but how much real use she would have been at a crunch at operating tempo would be rather open to question. You do get to a point with ships where you run out of decent solid things to weld other things to: so you can depend on them.

          These T23’s are a bit different in that they have been LIFEXD and are well over the design hull life before they are given another good thrashing.

          I agree that they will have young engines and other goodies in them but the plan was to strip them of most of the good bits for T26 Artisan and Ceptor etc. I suspect the Sonars will be found new homes on T32 as that can be built a bit quieter than T31? Anybody’s guess what T32 looks like when it is unveiled.

          • I heard that too, plan was to reuse systems on T26 etc. But if T23s can be sold for the cost of the new systems, plus scrap value, it’s still potentially a good deal for whoever buys them because they save the cost of a refit. RN can then buy new systems for T26. Or maybe some combination. Plenty of possibilities.

      • I don’t think the T23s will have any difficulty finding a new home. What’s worn out by RN standards can be perfectly acceptable to a regional navy for local patrol duties, especially if they have new engines etc. Besides the usual suspects Chile, Brasil etc. rumors that Greece are also interested.

        • I think Greece partnership with DCN is pretty much a done deal. The French government will heavily subsidise it and Greece will get much newer interim frigates plus FTI that they will probably pay for over 30 years interest free.

          • It’s possible, but from what I have read, I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. They have also said they are open to sourcing from more than one country, depending on what’s available. So who knows really but it doesn’t seem like a done deal to me.

          • Yep I think so too. Thing is Greece initially got a much cheaper bid for LCS and France already dropped their price, but the Greeks still widened the competition after. So it looks like they are genuinely open to all offers and it’s not just a cost negotiation exercise with France. Babcock have a competitive offer both price and spec so I think they are in with a shout. That’s my reading anyway but who knows.

          • It will be interesting to see the direction Greece takes. T31 should enable the lowest base cost, from which Greece can up arm as reqd/can afford in the initial implementation. But also gets Greece a platform they could scale all the way up to AAW destroyer over time if they wanted/needed to. The ASW capability may not be that bad either, with the basic A140 platform claimed to meet NATO noise reqs. for ASW ops and the Danish converting the Absalon class to ASW frigates as a proof point.

            Add to that a couple of T23 platforms, perhaps the most capable of any of the platforms being offered to bridge to the new frigate introduction. The main issue might be whether the T23s retain their current CMS or if Tacticos is installed for compatibility with T31 and the Greek’s Elli class frigates that already run Tacticos.

          • If they do take T23s they will likely run as is, it’s only a temp solution. T23s are old but a lot more modern than most HN fleet of 70s vintage. Nothing is official, but would be convenient, given that two T23s will retire early.

            Agree that A140 is probably the cheapest, most scalable offer on the table. Tacticos is also a plus for Babcock, but Damen are offering it too. Seems like the Greeks have a lot to think about so who knows where it will end up.

          • You’re probably right on T23, I was just wondering how much of a training issue it might be ramping up on a different CMS? Probably not worth the cost of a new CMS though, unless Thales UK see it as a loss leader for T31 and updates on Hydra.

          • I don’t know much about CMS so I can’t really comment.

            AAW/AD seems to be a very key part of the Greek requirement, they have ESSM on the Mekos. France was proposing Aster on the FDI, but it’s too expensive. So I was wondering if they might decide Ceptor is good enough (perhaps with CAMM-ER) it’s certainly a lot cheaper than any of the other options!

          • Ceptor really does open up options for navies, particularly with the RAM being relatively expensive and more limiting in capability. The Greeks are a consortia member for ESSM though, so they might consider there to be too much overlap at that level, although Ceptor might allow them to push back the fitting of MK41 to wait for the active seeker variants of ESSM and perhaps SM-2. If they ultimately default to using Ceptor for CIWS in the higher end platforms, then with Greece’s interest in the European Patrol Corvette project they might also consider Ceptor to be a baseline fleet wide solution. The additional anti-ship role is perhaps another appealing attribute. CAMM really seems to be in a class of its own currently in terms of its range of capabilities and cost.

          • “they might also consider Ceptor to be a baseline fleet wide solution”

            I agree, essentially that’s the line that RN have taken with T26, T31 etc. albeit RN has Aster for high end AD. Ceptor is perhaps ‘capable enough’ as a base to allow those with limited budgets to defer decision to expand to ‘proper’ AD later.

            I don’t think ESSM is overlapping though, because B2 active seeker variant is an order of magnitude more expensive; range is double vs standard CAMM. So a lo-mid-hi mix of CAMM, ESSM and SM2 (or Aster) makes sense, as RCN did on CSC. Perhaps Greece could do something similar.

    • True, however all the weapons we talk about are from MBDA UK

      Camm and it’s variants
      Meteor
      Brimstone
      ASRAAM
      SPEAR 3
      Storm Shadow
      ALARM
      Sea Venom

      A few are joint French products or joint Everybody.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_UK#Products

      Besides, I think MBDA is a collective that everybody in Europe can jointly be exceptionally proud. They really do create the most terrifying missiles.
      I personally don’t think they have a peer,I think they’re the best in the world at this.

      • I agree, but I don’t think pride need come into it.

        The European missile partnerships benefit all countries involved. They allow each nation to maintain, world class, quasi sovereign, manufacturing capability, at much reduced cost.

        But just as importantly the partnerships significantly strengthen European defence cooperation at governmental level. Which can only enhance European defence as a whole.

  9. I do wonder why nobody has yet purchased the naval version of Camm-ER. Even the Italians seem to be going for an updated Aster 15 for shorter range defence.

    The ER canisters are only 800mm longer than the standard ones, so designing them to fit in a new vessel should not be too difficult.

  10. I have no knowledge on this subject particularly
    so can some one explain why we are replacing aster with the seaceptor ,is the aster system out dated already ,or is the seaceptor adding more capability with taking out ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles?????????

    • Dave, I know little of capabilities compared to others here but incorrect on all counts.

      Sea Ceptor replaces Sea Wolf, not Aster.
      Aster is the Sea Viper missile on T45 destroyers for area defence.
      Sea Ceptor ( CAMM ) is on Frigates and shorter ranged.
      As for BM defence, that would be Sea Viper territory if Sampson radar is modified. Sea Ceptor much shorter ranged no idea if BM capable.

      • Indeed, Sea Ceptor is point defense out to local defense, 25kms and maybe a bit more.

        Sea Viper (Aster) is fleet defence, out to 120kms, but with a minimum of 2km

        So they complement each other.
        Especially as the T45 can have all three types and other CAMM wielding ships can have theirs cued by any sensor on the other ships.

        In a shooting war, a T26/31 and T45 paired together would bet very hard to kill.

        • The main discussion points re CAMM (25+ km & Mach 3) & CAMM-ER (45+ km & Mach 3.5) replacing Aster is in regard to Aster 15 (30+ km & Mach 3.5) & not Aster 30 (120+ km & Mach 4.5). Primarily because you can quad (4) pack the CAMM type missiles in the space of 1 Aster missile. It’s a quality versus quantity argument. CAMM was meant to be just a Sea Wolf/Rapier replacement, but ended up being somewhat more. In actual deployment so far, they have primarily been Sea Wolf replacement.

          • While Mk41 can quad pack camm, it is thought Sylver can only hold two, so the quantity to quality argument on vessels fitted with Sylver, such as T45, is not as strong.

            This may partially explain why the Italians are choosing to upgrade the Aster 15 and not replace it with camm on their current vessels (however, as these vessels also use aster 30, it makes more logistical sense to keep the two versions of aster operating together, instead of operating aster 30 and camm)

          • The problem with Aster 15 is that that the engine have the same diameter as Aster 30 so it is a comparative waste of space with CAMM.

          • Hi Alex, Do you know the canister diameter for Aster 15? I can find info on the camm canister being 275mm wide, but nothing on Aster, just 180mm for the missile itself.

          • I only saw design diagrams not measures. It appeared that the A15 booster was just shorter than A30

  11. Great to see Sea Ceptor picking up even more sales. It’s cold launch design, ability to be fitted into small spaces and be guided by a range of radar systems must give it the edge over missiles of comparable flight/warhead specs on paper.

  12. It appears that for once UK Defence Procurement got something right by engaging into a long term partnering agreement with MBDA, which has allowed them to invest in and develop a family of weapons that be used against a variety of targets and launched from land, sea and air.
    If only other areas worked smartly, think what else could be achieved.

  14. Can anyone tell me if the Army have received any sky sabre units yet ,was a bit surprise sea ceptor or land ceptor is the Actual sky sabre use to think there were different systems 🤔

  16. I think people are underestimating Sea Ceptor. As I understand the system can control at least 32 missiles in the air at 32 targets simultaneously. These targets can be surface or air and out to 25+ km. That is a capability that is pretty impressive and excellent against swarming attacks. It means that CSG21 could theoretically engage 2×48 + 2×32 targets at once? (When i was on HMS Devonshire in 1973/4 we could engage 1 target at a time!)

    • But you’d be pretty lucky to hit anything with Sea Slug back then. Whereas today, Aster and SeaCeptor are almost guaranteed a kinetic hit let alone a proximity detonation near the target.

      If a SeaCeptor/Artisan equipped T23 went back in time to 1982. The outcome for the attacking Argentinian aircraft would have been very different!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here