MBDA has signed a contract with Sweden for the delivery of Common Anti-air Modular Missiles (CAMMs).

This agreement, brokered between MBDA and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration FMV, involves equipping the Royal Swedish Navy’s Visby Class Corvettes with CAMMs, to be deployed via MBDAā€™s Sea Ceptor naval air defence system.

Sea Ceptor, a state-of-the-art naval air defence system, is well known for its ability to provide comprehensive self- and local area air defence.

It can counter a wide array of threats, including supersonic anti-ship missiles, attack helicopters, and un-crewed air vehicles. Notably, the system is adept at handling simultaneous attacks, including saturation attacks, from any direction.

Eric Beranger, CEO of MBDA, emphasised the significance of this contract. “CAMM will provide Sweden and the Royal Swedish Navy with a formidable air defence capability that gives the country a strong new contribution to NATO together with other allied Sea Ceptor users like the Royal Navy from the United Kingdom. Weā€™re proud also to be continuing our long history of partnership with Sweden and Swedish industry, including Saab.”

Sweden now joins a growing list of countries, such as Poland, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Brazil, that have selected the CAMM family for their latest generation naval and ground-based air defence needs.

You can read more about this by clicking here.

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

76 COMMENTS

  1. You’d think it would be a good idea to battle test these weapons now in Ukraine if they’re going to form the back-bone of our air-defence for the next decade.

  2. Great.

    This means that the program has a healthy R&D budget moving forwards.

    Volume will keeps costs for RN down.

    MOD will get back some or all of the R&D investments made given how widely the program has sold abroad.

    It is a testament to how good the system is that it is selling so well in such a crowded market place.

    Let’s see how ER and MR sell too.

    This is a big deal make no mistake about it.

    Anyone constantly crowing about US systems had better have a look at this. Cost per shot is lower. Open architecture. This is a big threat to the US big boys.

    Given the NSM is also being chosen widely……I’m sure I can hear pencils being sharpened somewhere…….

      • Sure it has.

        But Sea Ceptor sales are taking impressive bites of the pie.

        Other navies are validating MOD/RN choices with their orders.

      • and so far Sea Ceptor has sold to 10 countries.
        Polands CAMM deal is one of the the largest export Air Defence deals this century, if not the largest.

      • 12 operators, or future operators at my count of CAMM from all round the Globe. So very promising in my view for a relatively new system.

      • ESSM has sold to 17 countries in 25 years….

        CAMM has sold to 14 services in 5 years….

        I’d argue that CAMM was a harder sell as well as it didn’t have the SM1/SM2/Mk.41 userbase to sell straight into either…

        • Sea Wolf was a huge disappointment sales wise. On paper GWS-25 seemed like a world beater in the 1970’s, but it proved to be too hefty, complex and expensive. What was perceived to be a mediocre performance in the Falklands War (at least compared to the promises) all but ended ended potential export interest, and even the RN decided that Goalkeeper and Phalanx were better options for point defence.

          • Performance down south was good and afterwards it remained a good if complex system
            The RN put VLSW GWS 26 on T23 and not Phalanx or Goalkeeper. The difference being the missile. Trackers remained pretty much unchanged as R911
            Goalkeeper was a system looking for a home in RN service. The MOD bought it as a sweetener to the Dutch navy choosing RR engines for its frigates.

          • I always thought sea wolf had a good reputation. Love the goalkeeper aswell. Wish it was kept in service.

          • IIRC Goalkeeper also far outperformed Phalanx in the early days as well. It’s ability to re-engage was far ahead. Phalanx was also appallingly unreliable for its first decade of service.

          • Hi Rudeby. I found it peculiar the Americans did not adopt Goalkeeper – seemed odd . Particularly when considering the gun was American built

          • It was a case of Not Invented Here, plus they had Phalanx on the way which was cheaper, and easier to mount to existing vessels. The US was also primarily focused on Soviet high diver missiles. AEGIS for example could not engage sea skimmers until the late 80’s, partly due to the software but also because the Standard Missiles could not intercept that low.

            Goalkeepers gun, and crucially the mount were American. There were actually quite a few CIWS designed around the same gun and mount, including a Vickers design but Goalkeeper got out first and took all the business.

          • thanks for the reply Rudeboy interesting stuff, particularly around AEGIS. I do recall the soviet supersonic high dive missiles back in the 80s, principally as aircraft carrier killers carried by TU 22M.

          • hi GB . Hop your well Mate. I did think the RN missed a trick not converting all the Leander batch 3 frigates to sea wolf standard(there were only 5). I recall about four served on to the late ’80s as gun frigates?

          • The costs to refit them were ruinous, not far off the cost of a new ship, it was genuinely better to accelerate the T22’s & 23’s.

          • Hi GB. Mate, I have a Seawolf related question for you. I believe the system was designed to destroy targets incoming to the ship/system(hence point defence). Was Seawolf able to defend other nearby vessels? .i.e engaging targets that were not a direct threat to the Seawolf armed ship?

    • I can only imagine because the Visby Class Corvette operates nearer to Russia. Also, I’m pretty sure that the Baltic fleet sail very close to Sweden to exit the Baltic Sea.

      • It looks like the French have ordered 7 Patrouilleurs Hauturier OPVs. Looks good.

        The French got 7 vessels for 900 million Euros, they are equipped with a helo hangar and even have a hull mounted sonar. Meanwhile the UK paid over the odds for B2 Rivers just to keep shipbuilding skills alive because we didn’t order T26 on time, then we have the fact that the T31s don’t even have a hull mounted sonar despite being significantly larger vessels expected to go into hotter situations.
        Once again bravo MoD & UK Gov!

    • Then they become warships are are sent into harms way? They are not really big hulls with diverse prime drivers so wonā€™t fight after one hit.

      That would kill T32.

      PODS Sea Ceptor should be for Albions which have BAE CMS and Artisan so should slot into it as all the same as T23. So no big R&D risk there.

      • Yep the words ā€œin harms wayā€ are most apt. Whats next NSM on the Gib patrol boats šŸ„“
        Do people not realise there is a pot of money and it is finite, spend money on some hair braind idea diverts it from a must have.
        Like Magazines with a full load or proper spares provision. Itā€™s all a matter of priorities.
        And to be honest the River class have proved to be remarkably reliable and deliver exactly what it says on the packet. But then it does help if part of the original contractual obligations put the availability in as a binding obligation and the builders responsibility.
        Just wish they did similar with others šŸ¤”

        • Rivers are only any use for fisheries / constabulary type work.

          They only make sense in a safe orderly world. The one we had 10 years ago.

          Iā€™d rather see B1 & B2 retired and 5 x T32 take their place.

          That way fighting mass returns.

          • Aren’t some of the roles the Rivers fill, like fishery protection, WI or Falklands guard ships etc, a bit of a waste of a T31? If they’re actually fitted with the 32 Mk41 cells it’s said they will, having them float around Stanley or the Caribbean when an OPV can do the job

          • In the alternative you have row of warships doing nothing but with a crew.

            I apprise that in accountant think it isnā€™t a good use of resources.

            But if you have bought a real warship it can do other duties.

            BTW RN no longer does fisheries and something bigger and toothier than a River might be required to stop Chinese fishing fleets.

          • Hello SB . I think that is the general plan re the B1s retiring and and replaced by type 32’s? That being said, watch the next government come into power and stuff the whole plan up!

    • Nothing ! And because unlike the Visby class they arenā€™t designed for combat. They are OPVs simple as that and serve that function very well, just as they were designed for.

    • Visby is their main surface combatant….not the equivalent of a River Class….Visby is essentially Sweden’s Type 23/26…

      And it was designed with a SAM from day 1, it was originally going to be the Umkhonto, but cutbacks meant it was FFBNW.

    • The rivers B2 need the 40mm Bofors and yes sea Ceptor and maybe a few NSMs. Make them a useful 2nd line patrol and surface combatant (light combat)

      • Well if you intend fitting that then you also need a command system, a 3D search radar, improved chilled water cooling, displays, data networks, operators, extra accom, bigger fridges, more Logs staff redundant power supplies, Magazine capacity increases, bigger fire pumps, Auto spray systems probably with a fresh water pressurised tank system, a new platform risk assessment…you may as well add in ESM and data links for CAMM to also use… A helo/UAS and hangar for OTH targeting
        Suddenly an OPV is a T31…

        • šŸ¤£šŸ˜‚šŸ¤£šŸ˜‚ I bow to your clear expertise on this matter Gun. Genuinely didn’t realise there was so much upgrading that would need to be done. Could the Rivers at least get the 40mm Bofors gun?

          • Thats do able with a decent EO tracker. But you will still need all the gubbins that go with it unless you go command system lite and just locally operate it from a standalone console.
            Still need the mag upgrades I would guess.

    • Hi Barry the Visby is an armed to the teeth fast attack boat thatā€™s primary job will be to throw itself strait in the face of any Russia amphibious operations..it will be operating in the most high threat navel environment you could possibly getā€¦they are going to hide in the Baltic coastline then charge out fight and dieā€¦thatā€™s their jobsā€¦the B2 is a constabulary OPV, designed to chase drug runners, illegal fishing vessels and the odd pirate in the most cost effective way possibleā€¦adding CAMM makes it less cost effective and may even encourage some idiot to put it in harms way.

      • My given name is David…

        I agree with your description of the Visby role, however, I disagree with analysis that B2s should not have CAMM, from drones to helis, organisations and countries with interests counter to those of the UK are proliferating, having self defence is a must.

        Ask the crews of Antelope and Ardent.

        • Hi david, antelope and ardent were frigates, their job was to go in harms way, they did have air defence systems equivalent to the vast majority of all RN frigates at that timeā€¦the simple true was that at that time you could not fit adequate air defences on frigates of the size that the RN hadā€¦if you looked at the RN of the early 1980/1982 the following actual war ships could not defend themselves:

          7 type 81s ( sea cat)
          8 type 21s (sea cat)
          The last 2 type 12 ā€¦40mm bofors
          The last 8 type 12m..40mm bofors
          The 16 Batch 1 and 2 type 12i..(sea cat )
          5 batch 3 type 12i ( sea cat)

          then you had some frigates with some very limited self defence

          5 batch 3 type 21i ( one sea wolf launcher and controller ).

          Finally the RN had a grand total of 3 frigates that could in theory and practice defend itself against a modest air threat.

          So as you can see the Antelope and ardent weā€™re not under gunned in AAW compared to the rest of the frigate..fleet ( ā€¦almost the entire fleet was under gunned in regard to AAWā€¦That was both a limit of the technology and size of the RN frigatesā€¦..even modernising one of the larger board beam batch 3 type 12i only gave a very minimal self defence..as the five batch 3 type 12is could only fit one sea wall launcher and one controllerā€¦essentially 2 targets would overwhelm the shipā€¦..the 2500 ton RN frigates of the 1960-70 period were to small to have the heavy top weight of reasonable air defence systems( the U.S. contemporary frigates were 4k-5k and so could and did have adequate air defence) the type 22 and latter 23s as with all contemporary frigates were 4500-5000 tons for that very reason that reasonable air defence systems were and are heavyā€¦so the RN had to send frigates with almost no air defence into harms way because thatā€™s all they had ( because they had build a load of 2k-3k ton frigates) ā€¦that failure was about penny pinching on hull size and warship capability not around patrol vessels needing more weapons.

          What the RN did not do in 1982 or any other time was send any of its island class patrol boats to the Falklands conflict, in the very same way it will not send a Rivers class into a conflict nowā€¦at the high of the Cold War the RN was happy with 30/40mm gun armed patrol vesselsā€¦

          So putting a very expensive missile system on a patrol boat that you would never ever be so foolish to send into a conflict Zone is a pure waste of money and manpowerā€¦remember if you put the weapon system in you then have to increase the crewā€¦by quite a numberā€¦itā€™s not just a job you can give the present crew to doā€¦.so what does that do to operational efficiency.. increased top weight increased numbers of crew quarters, increased tonnage of food and other suppliesā€¦thatā€™s reduced operational range and sea daysā€¦ you will have to find the specialists to maintain and operate the missile systemā€¦are you stripping crew from the frigates ?

          also what sensors are you going to que these very expensive in money, manpower and operational impact..missiles..the Scanter 4100 2D radar is adequate for constabulary roles but itā€™s not a high end sensor and then you would have to fund all the work to integrate CAMM and Scanterā€¦itā€™s not plug and play..itā€™s serious development money.

          so the cost ends upā€¦development costs, fitting and yard work, paying for the missiles, finding and training the crew to operate the missile, the impact on the boats operational capabilities as a constabulary vesselā€¦finally what are the opportunity costs..what are you not funding and crewing by doing thisā€¦the sailors and money have to come from somewhereā€¦I would much prefer to see that investment in increased lethality for the RNs warshipsā€¦

          If you are concerned that there is an increased operational threat for a constabulary vessel in a peace time benign low risk environment there are other options.( and I donā€™t disagree with you, Iā€™d say a none state actor using drones etc is an issue)ā€¦there are other options..one would be up-gunning to a 40mm mk4 ( as on the type 31), there is no real none state actor threat that 40mm mk4 could not deal withā€¦itā€™s replacing one gun with another..so the crew stay the same..no impact operationally..itā€™s cheap and proportional and the is no danger ever that some idiot could sayā€¦.will itā€™s got air defence missiles..we need a air defence picketā€¦letā€™s use a B2 riversā€¦you can also give its a drone for increased operational awareness ( that improves safety as well as making it better at its job as a constabulary vessel).

          The Rivers are not alone..most of the world just sticks a medium gun( 30-76mm) on its patrol vesselsā€¦the only time you see very heavily armed vessels of that size is if a navy has a very specific brown water threat or it cannot afford frigates or does not need anything other than brown water combatantsā€¦.a 2000 ton hull can either be an effective and costs effective blue water long range constabulary vessel or a brown water heavily armed attrition type corvette..it cannot be both.

          • An excellent piece of commentary Jonathan – well written. I’d add the County class destroyers to your list of Sea cat armed vessels (or should I say under armed)

            I personally believe the RN missed a trick in not fitting a CIWS (Phalanx) to the Type 21 and batch 2 Leander’s post the Falklands. In particular in light of the Type 21’s experience. I imagine the MOD bean counters had something to do with that .

          • Hi Klonkie, indeed the county class were also not blessed with a great AAW fitā€¦as for fitting type 21 and type 12i with phalanx. I agree it would have been wise considering the lessons and something that would not have impacted on top weight. After all the type 12i was still in service a decade laterā€¦

            people do tend to underestimate how profoundly different the AAW capabilities of the modern RN escort fleet is compared to 20 years agoā€¦every escort now (even the ASW escorts) are capable of providing a pretty formidable short range area defence capability ( 32 CAMMs are not to sniffed at)..and the type 45 is sublime when compared to a type 42 ( which could at best manage two threats at a time)ā€¦infact one type 45 is a more effective AAW asset than four type 42s..and the type 42S were the only effective AAW platforms in a fleet.. now a type 45 will be backstopped by those CAMM armed frigates.

  5. People forget about the importance of CAMM not being from the USA and therefore not ITAR or an FMS from the US state department.

  6. “Sweden now joins a growing list of countries, such as Poland, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Brazil, that have selected the CAMM family for their latest generation naval and ground-based air defence needs”. As has been discussed here for a long time, UK does not have any GBAD to speak of (if it has any at all). Here’s a ‘British’ company flogging CAMM to all and sundry EXCEPT to the UK.

    • UK has a minimal number of Sky Sabre systems, featuring CAMM and entering service in 2021 (some sources say 2020). One battery was destined for the Falklands in 2021, the others to be moved where most needed, which I’m guessing right now will be Eastern Europe, I believe one UK battery was revealed to be in Poland. This is a new capability and most agree this isn’t anywhere near enough so far.

      Last year, MOD announced a new GBAD plan for a multi-layer defence as “a Category A Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) programme”, to be purchased in stages over the next decade. The new mega BMD radar, which had been postponed in March ’21, was reinstated in March ’22. So MOD are aware of the lack and starting to address it.

      CAMM itself has been bought into extensively for UK ships. The T23s have them already, the Type 45s will be retrofitted with them. The Type 26s and 31s will have them as they come into service and the UK has come to an agreement with Poland to develop and build the next member of the family, CAMM-MR for land and sea. To say UK isn’t buying CAMM is untrue.

      • Is that the billion pound radar? Itā€™s a lot of money for essentially a couple of minutes warning for the top levels of government.
        Is it still going to purchase an American radar?
        Long range missile defence is an expensive game to be in. Where the Ā£10 billion odd will come from is anyone guess.
        Lots of other items that should have as high a priority.
        We will wait and see what happens.

      • Yes, Poland and FI.
        Gentle correction, seems it is half a Battery deployed at each. Apparently, each Battery consists of 2 Fire Groups. And one FG is in Poland, the other in the FI, of the Battery covering these commitments.
        Each Fire Group has 3 Launcher Vehicles, 1 Radar, 1 Control vehicle.

      • BMD radar? Does that mean we’ll be getting BMD? Surely there’s no point having a billion Ā£ radar if we can’t do anything about it?

  7. Now im no missile ninja but it does seem that the CAMMs sea ceptor is becoming the system most people want and need. I see a new sense of urgency in many NATO, and none NATO countries!

  8. Going to be interesting where the Swede’s squeeze the CAMM onboard their Visby’s and how many. Are they going with CAMM or CAMM-MR like the Poles or a mix? It’d be good to get the Norwegians and Danes signed up to CAMM too, but a bit late with Finland who’ve gone with ESSM on their corvettes. Babcock UK is also working with Sweden on their next corvettes which could have a lot of international potential. Something from them might even turn up in the RN!

    • Poles are going for CAMM-ER on their ships in short term and developing MR with us (the UK) for use starting in 2030 or later. The swedes are going to fit the CAMM behind their superstructure on the Visbyā€™s, I believe you can see it on the picture at the top of the article ļ»æšŸ‘ļ»æ .

    • It will be CAMM on the Visby in 1 3×3 cell ExLS configuration for a total of 36 missiles.

      The Lulea Class which are following in c2030 will probably get CAMM, but may also get CAMM-MR.

      Norway and Denmark are ESSM/SM-2 users I’m afraid…..

      • Sorry Rudeboy, but how do you get 36 from 3×3?šŸ˜ Don’t they like our 24 šŸ„ CAMM configuration? šŸ˜‚. We might still be able to convince the Norwegians and Danes on CAMM.

        • 3 x 3 = 9 cell.

          Each cell has 4 CAMM (quad packed).

          4 x 9 = 36 missiles.

          Total buy will be around 250 missiles (5 x 36, reloads and test/trial missiles).

          • Thanks, got it. I missed the quad pack bit! That’s quite a CAMM missile load along with everything else on such a compact ship!

  9. Iā€™d be interested to know what all of these countries are using to host their CAMM canisters. As I understand it the mushroom farm on T23 was driven by expediency to essentially repurpose the previous launch tubes which is perfectly sensible but on new builds does seem to me to not be getting maximum packing density and quad-packing into a system designed for hot launch seems a bit wasteful in terms of the host silo being over specified for what is needed for CAMM.

    One of the big advantages of CAMM is the relative simplicity of the cold launch (no hot gas venting) so I wonder if all these export sales might at some point get to enough critical mass where it makes sense to develop a custom cost-optimised and space-optimised (maximum practical packing density) launch system to host CAMM and whatever maximum cold-launch canister size is anticipated for CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR.

    In the longer term that might not necessarily limit the silo to only CAMM either since a while back MBDA toyed with the concept of VLS Spear 3 (as evidenced by some renders – I donā€™t claim it went further than that) but it does make me wonder what other missiles might as some point be able to be hosted in a cold-launch canister.

    • I think it would make a lot of sense to install one or two sets of VLS-41 on the two QE class carriers. There is plenty of deck space, that will never see the number of aircraft originally envisaged. The most optimisc plans for the carriers for now centre on UAVs/ drones. We could have kept HMS Ocean for that limited ambition or use a coverted container ship for that! Installing VLS-41 would give great flexibility for better carrier/ fleet defence with CAAM, advanced ASM etc. Pressure on the surface fleet would be much reduced. These carriers are particularly vulnerable to air attack if their escorts break down. The US still equip carriers with their own AAs despite the huge defensive screen around their big ships. A break down of the T45 actually happened on the QE deployment to the far east. Embarassing for now, huge risk in wartime. We are clearly are not going to buy extra frigates [or subs for that matter], so why not develop what we already have as it would probably be more cost effective.

    • Visby will be using the LM ExLS standalone system, which will also be used by Canada on their CSC. ExLS will also be used on Saudi Arabia’s MMSC vessels, but whether its standalone or using ExLS as a liner in Mk.41 is unknown at present.

      Think we will see the UK use ExLS for CAMM as well in the future…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here