The Swedish Navy’s five Visby-class corvettes will be upgraded with the British-designed Sea Ceptor air defence missile system, under a new SEK 1.6 billion contract awarded by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) to Saab.
The integration of MBDA’s Sea Ceptor represents a significant boost in both Swedish and NATO maritime air defence capabilities.
Announced this week, the deal will see Saab begin work in 2026 to modify the stealthy Visby-class vessels and install the system, replacing their current short-range defences with a much more capable area air defence solution.
According to Saab, the addition of Sea Ceptor will allow the corvettes to protect “a considerably larger area and engage air targets at longer ranges compared to the existing weapon systems currently on board.” The system uses the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), developed in the UK by MBDA, which has already been fielded by the Royal Navy and other allied fleets.
“This modification strengthens both Sweden’s and NATO’s air and missile defence by increasing the Swedish Armed Forces’ operational capability and ability to operate across the entire conflict spectrum,” said Mats Wicksell, Head of Saab’s business area Kockums. “With the air defence system on board, the Visby-class corvettes will continue to be a vital platform for many years to come.”
Sweden had previously ordered Sea Ceptor missiles directly from MBDA, but this latest contract confirms Saab’s role in adapting the Visby-class ships for integration.
Sea Ceptor has been chosen by a growing number of NATO navies, including those of the UK, Canada, and Poland, and provides both point and area defence against fast jets, helicopters, drones, and precision-guided munitions. It can be quad-packed into a single launcher cell and features soft-launch technology, reducing deck stress and improving survivability.
A bit of background
The Visby class is a class of stealth corvettes developed by Sweden and operated by the Swedish Navy. Designed and built by Kockums (a subsidiary of Saab), these vessels are notable for their advanced stealth characteristics, with a hull constructed from carbon fibre reinforced plastic to reduce radar cross-section. The corvettes displace approximately 640 tonnes, are 72.7 metres in length, and are optimised for operations in the littoral waters of the Baltic Sea.
Sea Ceptor is a ship-based, all-weather, surface-to-air missile system developed by MBDA for naval air defence. It employs the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), which provides point and local area air defence against a range of aerial threats including aircraft, missiles, and precision-guided munitions. The system uses active radar homing and does not require dedicated fire control radars, instead relying on mid-course guidance updates and a two-way data link. Sea Ceptor’s soft vertical launch system enables the missile to be ejected before its rocket motor ignites, minimising launcher wear and deck damage.
One of Sea Ceptor’s core capabilities is its high rate of fire and ability to simultaneously engage multiple targets, which makes it suitable for defending against saturation attacks. The system has a range of more than 25 kilometres and a high degree of manoeuvrability, allowing it to counter fast-moving and agile threats.
Sea Ceptor is modular and scalable, allowing it to be fitted to various ship classes, from frigates to smaller vessels. It has been selected by multiple navies including those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Chile, and Brazil. Its relatively compact footprint and lack of requirement for dedicated target illumination radars make it particularly well-suited to vessels with limited space and weight margins.
We really need Sea Ceptor on all platforms now. If we can develop its software to provide point defence against SRBM then it can meet all the defensive needs for the MRSS, Carriers, T26/T31/T45 all using the cold gas ejection system.
Given the speed of the weapon I don’t see any reason why it can’t provide point defence against an SRBM. It was said that sea wolf which was much less capable could engage naval shells which is a similar speed and profile to an anti ship ballistic missile.
The T26 can also potentially hold twin packed CAMM MR in their Mk41 VLS giving a limited area defence capability and making them much more of a general purpose destroyer with both Anti submarine and limited AAW capabilities.
The artisan 3D does have the ability to track and target ballistic missiles so this should all be very cheap to do as it’s largely software that is required.
Agree with all of that Jim, the ASRAAM baseline missiles are proving terminally effective to Russian drones, helicopters, cruise missiles and aircraft over Ukraine. Production needs to be ramped up for sea ceptor – which is part of what MDMA are doing with their doubling of workforce, the cost per missile needs to come down, which I am sure it is with such widescale and ever growing international sales for the system. The RN should be mounting these weapons on as many platforms as possible- including a small VLS system and NSM cannisters and 40mm bofors on all the river class- making them far more capable at constabulary work with a useful secondary function as a light escort or close protection vessel for a capital ship.
The RFA’s easily have enough space to mount a couple of 40mm bofors and a sea ceptor launcher with associated radar and combat management system.- Im guessing that would be a high intensity war upgrade but would be great to be prepared for a high intensity war before it actually happens and we are already in the poo.
As has been said many times, uparming the River-class OPVs with anything more than perhaps a 40mm would result in a lack of availability. The River-class work because they are easy to maintain, and are not particularly complex in terms of weaponry. They also do not deploy in theatres or roles that would require a greater weapons fit, and have very high availability. They were never intended to be frigates – stop advocating for making them something they are entirely unsuited to be.
Looking at what threat these ships may face. Perhaps the RN needs a rethink on how they ought to be armed, if they are expected to continue doing the work they are currently doing. I am not suggesting that they should be up-armed similar to the Thai Krabi class. But they should have a means to defend themselves against drones in particular, be that FPV suicide or bomb dropping drones. If the Houthis can adapt and use them against Tier 1 warships. Then pirates, drug smugglers etc can’t be too far off using them either. Using a DJI drone carrying 1/2 kilo of PE that’s wrapped in nails. Then smashing it into the ship’s bridge, will either deter the ship from pursuing or seriously injure (or worse) the bridge crew.
If we were to keep the options realistic. The first modification would be replacing the 2D Scanter radar with a 3D one. An off the shelf option could be the Thales NS50. Which is a X-band radar that can do both air and surface searches. But also be used for providing fire control to small/medium calibre guns. The new Dutch and Belgium mine counter measures (MCM) ships will have this radar. This radar is capable of detecting very small types of drone.
Against Drones, the DS30 mount could be linked to the radar. But I feel it should be replaced with the BAe/Bofors Mk4 40mm. As this would allow the ship to engage targets further away. Plus the programmable 3P 40mm shells it can fire, are more effective against airborne targets. The mount does not have to penetrate the deck. As the turret can hold a 100 shells. However, if there is scope for a below deck magazine, perhaps that should also be included. Again the new Dutch-Belgium MCMs are also using this weapon system.
With just these two modifications, a batch 2 River class, would be able to protect itself better against drone threats, that it may face in the near future. Additionally the radar and weapons combo, could also provide traditional CIWS defence against anti-ship missiles, if the ship was attacked.
all shoes all of the nations that bought the batch 2 river design have ‘gunned, ‘are built around the systems and hardware it might need to use although the designs of the modern corvettes can be very impressive.and these highly flexible platforms, because of their sizes can more often than not be produced at a faster rate than say, a frigate. I do believe however that the RN has a fixation for size of it’s ships. and seem t be designed by browsing in the BAR Catalogue many other navy use the searam system and we know that it’s well thought of and it’s pretty cheap in comparison with its peer’s. are all those other nations wrong by having it? I often believe that there is a degree of techno snob very in all of our forces.
CAMM MR Should have been fitted to Type 45. 16 Mk 41 VLS could have been fitted with 2 CAMM MR each giving 24 missiles. Instead MoD went for a mushroom farm that can only take standard CAMM. The carrier should also get CAMM. Every other major carrier has both a gun and missile defence. The
MoD decided to penny pinch and under armed the carriers.
those Visby corvettes prove not all ships have to be built the size of a cruiser.we know it why doesn’t anyone else,?
I guess because the Visby can be petite, as it will just be tooling around the Baltic Sea. So no need for great big fuel tanks, ammo storage, fancy radar etc equipment, such as on a big fancy go anywhere do anything “See the World” fancy RN type.
First and foremost I am out of my depth here. However would these corvette be of any use in and around our own coasts, we see the reports of Ivan buggering around Scotland and my impression is that as a first as well as last line of defence they could be “worth their weight in gold” in various roless.
(Replying to [bill Lilley], but there’s no option)
Not really. That’s more the role of a frigate, and to be frank, corvettes tend to cost more and ultimately be less capable than a frigate.
@Bill Lilley
The argument against corvettes for the Royal Navy is that the RN wants to remain a blue-water navy, that is it wants to be able to travel and fight on any ocean in the world.
The cost of a building a warship lies substantially in the systems: the sensors, weapons and combat systems. Increasing the size of the base ship doesn’t increase the overall cost all that much. The difference between building an 90m OPV, a 70m corvette and a 140m frigate, tells you the big jump is the cost difference between the OPV and the corvette, not between the corvette and the frigate. So when we already have a second tier frigate that’s costing us £350m (ish), why build a £300m corvette that can only work in home waters? The flexibilty of having a frigate that can operate globally and has room for expansion makes it worth paying the extra or even building the frigate with a lower system spec.
(The Visbys themselves are expensive for corvettes due to attempts at stealth, and would cost substantially more than £300m in today’s money. I’m using illustrative numbers.)
Because a 600t Warship in the rough seas of the North Atlantic is not a great proposition, nor is the 2,500nmi range very useful (a Type 31 has a 9,000nmi range)
🥴🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮
CAMM-MR isn’t ready, probably wont be for quite a while. I’d rather quad pack CAMM-ER so it sits alongside alongside CAMM and Aster. The real elephant in the room is AESA seekers. Neither Aster nor CAMM-Any have this. In fact CAMM-Any is basically a miniaturised Aster seeker relying on burn-through PESA.
There is no CAMM-MR. It still being designed.
To be honest they could replace all the low density mushroom farms with these 3 cell ExLS launchers.. each one takes up about the same space as a 6 cell CAMM mushroom farm.. but can instead hold 12 CAMM.. you could easy give each T26 4 3 cell ExLs launchers in place each of its 2 4 x6 mushroom farms.. for 96 CAMM.. put 4 3 cell ExLs in place of the planned 4×6 mushroom farms on the T45 for 48 CAMM instead of 24… T34 you could easily give it 4 3 cell ExLs for 48 CAMM.
If as it looks like the budget is going up a lot and lethality needs to be upped replacing the mushroom farms with ExLs is a way to go….
That’s exactly what they have gone for, 3 x ExLS so 9 cells each with 4 CAMM quad packed for a total of 36 missiles. Which is 4 more than a T23 and on an 8th of the displacement, 40 knots, stealthy, range of 3000 nm, AS Torpedoes, 8 SSM and a 57mm gun all on 500 tonnes and a crew of 40. Best bit is it uses a version of the SAAB Giraffe Radars the Army use for CAMM and its compatible with NSM.
Sod T32 buy a dozen for home waters 😎 they can delouse the SSBNs, carry out mine hunting, escort Russian ships and pretty well close down access to the Irish / North Sea, what’s not to like 🤔
But it will never happen as no Admiral would be seen dead in one.
It is a serious piece of kit, but it also shows what a bit of a game changer CAMM can be for small combatants.. a 25+ KM very effective air defence missile that can be launched in large numbers with out complex intergration with advanced and heavy fire control sensors..that you can stick 36 on a very small platform..
I have never been a great lover of arming the rivers 2 as it would turn an OPV into a corvette.. but just maybe 4 corvettes is what the RN need now it’s very likely to be constantly engaging Russia in the north and Norwegian seas… Russians take strength far more seriously than presence. It would take some strain off the escort numbers.
I agree about freeing up the Frigates, the French are going down a different line of thinking with their new OPV which will free up frigates but has very little offensive ability. Problem is that if we were to build say only 4 Corvettes, by the time we have scoped it, defined the requirements and tendered to industry for competitive design it will be 2035, 3000 tonnes and gold plated. Sweden is presently working on Visby MK2 and I have to say I really like their design, it’s small, fast, flexible, lean manned and packs a punch. So I’d want more than 4 !
@ ABC one of the other things I never understood HMG did not go for is a very simple TAS tug like the US use.. it’s perfect for the UK because it does need high end ASW capabilities just to support the ballistic missile subs, but that does not need to be a frigate or ship with kinetic effectors.. as a airborne ASW asset can prosecute once detected..2 of those would free up the need for a fleet ready escort.. ( which is quite frankly going to be a waste of a T26 especially if the RN had some Regonal major surface combatants ( corvettes).. I do think the RN now really needs to think about its surface combatant fleet in three ways
1) CBG and amphibious group.. essentially being able to support 2 powerful surface. Groups across the globe each with 1-2AAW ships and 2 ASW ships.. so that is 4 AAW ships and 4 ASW ships at any one time.. so rule of three says 12 ASW based frigates and 12 AAW destroyers and or second line AAW frigates ( 50/50 split).
2) single large surface combatant deployment and meanfull global presence.. essentially the patrol frigate that has land attack capability…. The type 31.. the RN needs to generate 1 of these in the pacific and one in the western Indian Ocean..and maybe 2 other so 9 T31s
3) home waters/ European and EEZ. This needs mass without range and endurance.. some form of ASW that can que in the airborne ASW, light surface strike and patrol.. 10 patrol based corvettes ( 57mm gun and CAMM.. + ability to take NSM) one based in the Falklands ( as some time soon China will start pushing with the South American nations.. so a little more than an opv will be needed) and 9 UK based
Indeed, CAMM-MR should be able to tackle a SRBM, given missiles such as IRIS-T SLM can also do the same.
Where have the experts on these subjects all gone ? Until rather recently, these subjects would have been awash with comments from Gunbuster and Sailorsam and Airborne and so on and so forth.
Come back guy’s, your platform needs you.
Farouk, too…
Seaceptor is a great missile but needs a mid life upgrade. It’s range could do with an uplift
So, you want a CAMM with an improved range and updated electronics? The Italians may have got there first 🙂
Cough
a few of the previous posters have gone quiet of late, maybe we’re just getting old and forgetful
Pensions come in so they are all down the pub.
best place to go
Loads of new accounts on NL now. “TorpedoJ” seems to have taken root.
“Is it School holidays or something ?”
I do wonder if we will start to see 3 cell ExLS launchers on RN escorts.. very compact easy to install.. each 3 cell unit takes 12 CAMM that’s a lot of missile density for the size and weight.
As the deference budget starts to loosen up ( we know from Robinson the government are now going to 3% by 2030..ready for the NATO 3.5% by 2032j I wonder if the low density mushroom farms get replaced by these.. you could fit a lot of 3 cell ExLs launchers on a T26 or T31 will a hell of mix of CAMM and and CAM ER/MR to cover all threat ranges.
I’ll bet the Visbys get them quicker than our T45s.
The Visby mid life upgrade includes a number of new weapons and systems, such as the RBS 15 anti-ship missile. However, it will also be the first to fully integrate the ExLS vertical launch system. Which in turn will have CAMM as its first integrated missile. This is an important step, as I believe a lot of the reason why it hasn’t been used before is that a lot of Navies didn’t want to be the lead integrator, which normally carries all the risk, cost and time delays. Sweden joining NATO has led to this impetus. So we may start seeing other Navies looking at this system. Especially if Sweden iron out all the bugs and they have ships of a comparable size.
The next batch of Visbys were cancelled in favour of a larger ship, the Lulea class, which is being part designed and built by Babcock. From the blurb it seems the hulls will be built in a “Babcock facility” and then will then go to Sweden for fitting out. The new ship is going to be around 100m long, so probably closer to 2000t. According to the Swedish Navy, this new class of ship is being designed to be deployable and interoperable with NATO’s ships, which the Visbys aren’t really suited for. One of its key requirements are longer range surface to air missiles, to provide a better area capability. So perhaps it will have either the ExLS or the full fat Mk41, could the Swedes stick with CAMM, but include the longer ranged variants? The other main requirement is that they’d like is a helicopter hangar, which the Visby’s don’t have. Perhaps it will look similar to the Turkish Ada class corvette, which would be a similar size.