The UK and Poland are exploring the idea of cooperating on the development of a ‘Future Common Missile’.

At the Zamość Military Base in Poland today, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence Mariusz Błaszczak signed an Air Defence Complex Weapons Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

This enables the UK and Poland to cooperate in the development and manufacture of current and future complex weapons.

The two ministers also agreed a new working group, which will explore the potential for the UK and Polish Armed Forces to cooperate on the development of a Future Common Missile.

Though requirements for the missile are still in development, it is envisioned to be a medium-to-long range, surface launched missile that can be used in both Land and Maritime environments and will be a development of the CAMM family of missiles.

Managing Director of MBDA UK Chris Allam said:

“To deliver Small Narew to Poland in such an extremely short timeframe is a remarkable achievement, and we’re proud that this has been accomplished through our very close partnership with Polish Grupa Zbrojeniowa and thanks to strong support from the UK government. Today’s agreements launch the next step in Polish-UK missile co-operation and underpins the PGZ-MBDA technology transfer proposal on Narew, while also supporting Pilica+, Miecznik, Tank Destroyer, and other vital projects.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was quoted as saying:

“I’m delighted to be in Zamosc today with my friend and close defence partner Marius Balszczak. We have had a close defence alliance with Poland for over 150 years and as we face the threat from Russia, we need the equipment and the capabilities to safeguard our people and preserve European stability. Our new agreements demonstrate that commitment and the UK’s support for Poland’s defence modernisation plans.”

You can read more 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

75 COMMENTS

  1. Is this a possibility of us developing a medium-to-long range air defence missile? If so, this is very much so necessary and I would argue just as important as SHORAD and defence against mini-drones.

    • Interesting subject, Ive just finished reading about how the Russian airforce has been kept at bay by the Ukr SAM missile screen and whilst we have been banging the drum about
      Stinger
      Starstreak
      Piorun
      NASAMS

      According to the article I have just read that as of Mid May the Ukrainians operated 20 S-300PT/PS/V1 long range SAM missile sysytems and 30 Buk-M1 as well as 30 early warning radars . In the Donbass area (100 miles by 100 miles) 3 S-300S/Vs abd 4 Buk-M1s was enough to keep the russians at bay with the Buk-M1 deemed the better weapon sysytem.

      And I have to ask what do we have other than the RAF

      Article
      Russians SEAD Mission goes missing
      Combat aircraft Oct 22

      • We have nothing beyond CAMM which is quite shocking. Theatre level air defence and ballistic missile defence is vital for any modern army to fight. We are the only major power the lacks such a capability now. Ukraine has shown just how important a layered missile defence system is. With just the threat of the S300 being enough to keep the Russians Low and in range of MANPADS or operating miles away and wasting their long range cruise missiles.

        • It also highlights how woeful the Russian SEAD capability is. The Kh31 anti-radiation missile that both Ukraine and Russia uses, can only home onto a radar that is transmitting. If the radar goes into standby, the missile looses track and flies off. Unlike HARM, it does not have a GPS receiver. So it cannot correlate a transmission to a fixed position. Which is what HARM does if it looses the emission.

          Furthermore, all of Ukraine’s fixed SAM sites were taken out by cruise missiles in the first couple of days. Which not only reinforces the need for a 24/7 early warning radar networked to you SAM system. But critically the need for mobile SAM systems to take over, when the fixed sites inevitably get taken out.

          If NATO was properly involved, the majority of Russian SAM systems would have been taken out in the first week.

  4. A very sensible country to develop with. The addition of Sweden/Finland would bne an added bonus in this enterprise .

  5. While I welcome this news, Shouldn’t the priority be developing missiles capable of ballistic missile defence?

    • If they are talking about the CAMMER it only has a range of around 40km, I believe we need something along the line of the SAMP T a land based version of the ASTER missile with at least the block1 NT missiles with options to upgrade to the block 2 as soon as it’s ready.

    • From the description of it, this would be something of the equivalent of S300, which I believe does have a ballistic missile defence function- certainly for the theatre BMs like Iskander that are seeing a lot of use in Ukraine.

    • I’d agree that ballistic missile defence should be brought forward on the list of things that the MoD needs to get sorted.

      Not sure about the feasibility but maybe a NATO wide project for ballistic missile defence to create an Iron Dome like system for the whole alliance?

  6. Thoughts of cooperating on a medium to long range missile for surface and maritime launch.
    A development of CAAM.
    So is CAAM-er not long enough? Not good enough?
    Perhaps we are looking at a replacement for aster 30 to go on the new destroyers.
    So we have starstreak for very short range, CAAM for short to medium range and if this development proceeds a medium to long range.
    I suppose it’s not just the missile that needs development it’s the whole system. Sensors, data links, launchers etc etc.
    Is it affordable if this study goes anywhere? Maybe ask Ukraine to join the party. They do systems on a budget and clearly have a need. They have skilled people. Maybe they can’t afford to pay for development but can bring other things to the party.

    • CAMM is 100kg 25km+
      CAMM-ER is 160kg 40km+
      ER is made by stretching the centre of the missile to extend its range, it maintains soft-launch capability.

      My feel is they might be looking for something with 80-100km+ range and that would be the furthest you could go without requiring a two-stage missile. That would put it marginally below the performance of an SM-2 but they would obviously be trying to keep the size under control, SM-2 at 8m and 1350kg is twice as long and nearly ten times heavier than a Camm-ER making it a lot less portable.

      • Interesting if it is a stretched version of CAMM hopefully it results in the UK a ordering it. CAMM is an amazing missile however it is on the short range side for modern combat. If we were going to get a bigger missile for the British army I was hoping for Aster 30 as we could then look at a ballistic missile capability. Can’t imagine even a stretch version of CAMM being effective against ballistic missiles.

      • Meteor is 190kg and has 200km of ATA range. I expect adding a soft vertical launch component will result in a SAM range that’s a bit shorter but probably more than 40km.

        Can we make a VL SAM Meteo or would giving CAMM air breathing propulsion be easier?

        • Theres a big performance difference in a ground launched weapon which starts with zero kinetic energy and one fired from an aircraft at 30,000+ feet travelling close to Mach 1. You can see the same with Brimstone where if launched from a helicopter it doubles the range of being launched from the ground and being launched from a jet triples it.

        • Meteor has a solid fuelled ramjet, launched at speed. Not appropriate to SVL. I suspect. It would need a substantial boost motor to get it to speed.

          • No, the ramjet’s exhaust contains a booster rocket, which leaves the exhaust empty after burn-out. It will easily get it past Mach 1 from a standing start.

            Adding reaction motors to the tail of the missile is doable, just like they did with ASRAAM when making it into a CAMM. At 190kg it can be flung into the air by the soft-launch system.

          • Agreed re the boost motor, I forgot about that. I wondered if | would get picked up on it. SVL less likely.

      • Update from informed sources in Poland, they are colloquially calling this the CAMM-EX and are seeing it as a cheaper PAC-3 MSE missile to use in their Patriot batteries alongside the PAC-3 MSE they have bought.
        PAC-3 MSE has a ceiling of about 24km at 40km, and a range of upto 70km against lower targets

        • That would be a very useful missile, especially if keeps the diameter of CAMM.

          That would give a reasonably priced missile for a lot of purposes. Replace some of the CAMM launchers in a T26.

          if it can be quad packed in mark 41 silos, that would be very useful, adding more area air defence options for the T26, T32 and T26 would be very potent.

        • That would be a very interesting missile to have in the stockpiles.

          The main thing about CAMM is that it is relatively cheap so you can afford to have reloads.

    • I am assuming this is primarily initially linked to the supply by the UK of the short range (CAMM) aspect of the layered defence system being developed by Poland. Clearly they will be building their version of the missile which the stated transfer of IP shows, which no doubt was important in winning the contract, it will also be used on the new Polish Frigate(s) too, so they want internal production. Now there are two further layers to this Integrated Air Defence network they are building, all integrated into their early warning and control set up that is very different to ours, so CAMM needs to be integrated into it. I believe longer range and anti ballistic missile defence is covered by Patriot which they are only slowly obtaining. Now my mind is getting hazy here but the other layer (probably intermediate) may be Israeli or am I completely off beam there.

      Anyway this new contract is interesting as it suggests more than what the uk element has been previously stated by the mention of those proposed ranges for this cooperation. My guess is that Poland, and indeed by association the UK is looking to expand upon the base CAMM technology to either develop it much further including in terms of range, or using it as a base to develop further new but separate missile developments in the future. Makes a lot of sense for both Countries. Present events show the importance of controlling the means of production and. combining energies will potentially help pay for and reduce the development time perhaps of such systems. So my assessment is that Poland wants to eventually produce missiles for all three layers of its defence umbrella ( or as much as possible) while conveniently for Britain, which has maintained a watching brief on the Aster upgrades but so far has not committed to using them, this might enable us to eventually develop our own missiles in the medium to long range with anti ballistic ( anti hypersonic too) sharing costs and development with Poland (others too potentially) and a long term cooperation that could have gone to other European Suppliers instead. It would give a great foundation to supply other central/eastern and Scandinavian customers too along with integrated systems. And that leads to the next possibility.

      For even better it’s an opportunity to develop with Poland western level new or updated missile programmes for both Countries and for export, a Powerhouse indeed utilising a range of launch vehicles. Potential perhaps for Brimstone and HVM and Starstreak in domestic Polish weapon programmes of the nature already demonstrated there for Brimstone for example. This is very promising indeed, Poland has a massive potential for increasingly modern arms manufacture along with cost advantages and the wider our cooperation is now will be immeasurably rewarded in the future if we play our cards right. With recent Polish agreements with Turkey and South Korea I feared we may have missed the boat but it seems not.

      • Also Patriot and other US missiles are eye wateringly expensive, Polish production and MOD imprimatur would be a big export advantage.

  7. This would be top of my shopping list.

    Mid priced, mid ranges multi purpose missile that can be made in large quantities.

    We certainly have the tech to do this very, very well.

    Also with a partner who will press the accelerator pedal….

    Bravo.

    • Just been checking out the Pilica+ As that wasn’t familiar to me. It’s the further development of the mobile air defence system Poland has ie the +. It’s to acquire Camm launchers which increases its range from 6.5 to around 25 km. it’s prime function is to protect the Patriot batteries. So I wonder if the reference to ‘longer range missiles’ is actually relating to the increase in range that CAMM offers it’s mobile defence batteries, rather than any immediate plans to increase the range of CAMM itself. Could be either I guess though still looks like setting the parameters for further expansion of the missile.

      • I don’t understand. Given CAMM’s soft launch feature, why would CAMM have a shorter range when fired from missile batteries?

        The headline says developing “Future Common Missile” which really sounds like a new missile.

    • I think you’ll find Germany will along with others who are reluctant to acknowledge the current dangers in the world will act very differently if Russia fires off a tactical nuke but then maybe it’ll be too late.

      • The UK are already vowing to increase defence spending to 3% GDP. I can’t imagine France will sit on it’s wallet and be left behind either.

        • You never can tell with France, they tend to do exactly what they want and not really take much notice of others.

    • I think it’s beginning to, ironically it’s the expansion of Poland to very possibly becoming the biggest land power in Europe that appears to upset German defence sensibilities than actually having a rabid Putin threatening a wider war. They have a problem with Poland being more powerful than them especially as it’s not toeing the EU line these days.

    • I wonder if you drew up a list of UK vehicles, weapons and equipment and then a list of their German equivalents and then allowed British squaddies to chose which they would like to operate, i wonder what their selection list would look like. How much would would be British and how much would be German ?

      • Germany have taken Defence with a capital D very seriously, but less so defence, the act of defending itself and its allies. German Defence is a nice little export earner and their quality is pretty good.

        Until last year German seemed convinced that Ostpolitik continued to keep them safe from any Russian threat, and it might have if it wasn’t for the fact that “shit happens”. Shit always happens and the best laid plans of German chancellors need a plan B involving a big stick. 2022 is Germany’s post-Merkel year of relearning.

  9. Well if it keeps the same diameter of CAMM and be quad packed in a M41 silo that gives the T26 and T31 some good options for area defence.

    Also if it keeps its anti surface warfare capability that would be very interesting a 80km, Mach 3+ ( probably 200kg) missile, cheap and plentiful on all RN escorts…

    • What is this quad pack Mk 41 fixation everyone has?
      If you want to spend 15 mil for 8 Mk41 hot launch tubes to quad pack a cold launch missile into you can I suppose. Or for less money just build the CAMM launch boxes into the ship. The T23 mushrooms are like that because of the old Sea Wolf VL system. CAMM on T23 was done to get it to see as quickly as possible with as little structural rework as possible. A new build launch system doesn’t need to look like a T23 silo.
      The silo could be a group of the square topped CAMM launch boxes (just as the Army Sky sabre is on its truck) next to each other achieving a good VLS density without all the complexities and cost of a Mk41. It would also not impinge as deeply into the ships hull as a Strike length Mk41 would.
      VLS systems take up valuable internal real estate in the most used centre areas of a ship.
      Mk41 is best left to hot launch missiles.

      • It’s not an obsession it’s just what they are sticking on the type 26 and probably the T31.

        interesting I did read a piece that looked at the strategic influences of navies and to different tools that a power can use. It specifically noted US escorts as being a different level of strategic asset compared to a European escort and this was based around the ambiguity created by the large numbers of MK41 strike length launchers carried.

        Effectively premise was the US has turned its escorts into strategic threats/tools as no one knows just how many tomahawks they are carrying/what is in the Mk41 and so has to assume they are a potential deadly threat to key national assets, where as however good an RN escort is at its job, it’s a known quantity and will never be a strategic threat, beyond sea lanes.

        So effectively the MK41 changes what the escort actually is, but agree from the just an escort point of view and adding CAMM it’s cheaper just to add the cold launcher without using MK41. Depends what type of power you are and the U.K. is a power that uses the full range of soft power as well as strategic threat to maintain itself.

        • Did the article refer to the current sorry state of the USN surface fleet. Having to purchase European frigates and not having a replacement for its 50 year old AB designs and the travails of the Ford class?

          • Nope it was not an article on the wasteful and profligate (slightly incompetent) USN procurement, but instead focused on navies as strategic tools and levers. What it did present well was why a AB was a great strategic tool that a European style escort. Which is cogent as ship with an unknown quantity of tomahawks/cruise missiles sitting in your region is a far greater geopolitical influencer that a T45 or T23. Not saying that an AB is a better ASW ship than a type 23 ( it’s not) or a better air defence platform ( again its not unless you like counting top trump missile numbers), but it is a great threat to a nations key infrastructure than any RN vessels other than a carrier or SSN.

          • Fair enough, but I would have thought that an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub performs this function equally well, whereas the ABs are now a very old jack-of-all-trades master of none.

          • Indeed and but it was discussing different tools, the aircraft carrier is essentially an overwhelming threat and is the only thing a peer nation would take notice of, but for many things it’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut and even for the states there are a limited number. SSNs are more of an implied threat, unless you are actually using them ( so if your actually going to strike the SSN is the best tool) but what makes an SSN a great strike resource also means the power your putting pressure on may just think “ your bluffing I’m betting you don’t have an SSN in strike distant’. Where as a Burke is plentiful, not an overwhelming threat, but is visible and able to influence due to its strike potential. To be honest I think that is where the RN were going with the GP version of the type 26.

          • “current sorry state of the USN surface fleet.”

            If the most dominant and capable surface fleet on the planet by a vast margin is described this way, I’m curious to hear how you describe lesser navies.

          • Having worked in risk management where rose tinted glasses are not an option, I tend to comment based on evidence. Just as there are economies of scale, there are also diseconomies of scale. Therefore, just as the US Navy is undoubtedly the foremost global navy, it undoubtedly has serious structural problems, in training, ship procurement and financial management (see various audit reports and mismanagement/risk reviews).

          • Difference is like an elephant to a mouse, analogy naturally is adjusted for scale! UKDJs seem to have a peculiar rose tinted view of USD, the waste is just enormous and makes the MOD look fantastic (only 1 cock-up per service per generation!).
            One egregious example is congress forcing the military to buy stuff they don’t want or forcing them to keep stuff the don’t want. This beggars belief in any rational system.

        • I can see that argument re MK41 but in reality an all-MK41 ship is almost certainly not going to be an entirely unknown quantity to any potential adversary. Surely any ship is going to carry some defensive missiles rather than rely entirely on soft kill and/or CIWS so any enemy could reasonably safely assume that a certain number of the MK41 will not be carrying offensive missiles but will be carrying (possibly quad-packed) some number of short and possibly also medium/long range defensive missiles.

          If everyone knows that a certain number of MK41 will be carrying defensive missiles then, if as in the UK’s case those defensive missiles are cold-launch and hence can be hosted by a much cheaper dedicated cold-launch silo such as Gunbuster describes, why not cost-optimise at least the defensive part of the load-out by hosting it in much cheaper and higher packing density cold-only launchers? This seems to be the philosophy adopted with the T26’s mixture of cold launch for defensive missiles but also the MK41 “mystery box”. (And it’s a total mystery for us right now isn’t it? Has the UK announced anything that will be bought for the T26 MK41 silos?)

          I just hope that both the T26 and T31, and soon T32 I assume, have allocated enough compartment space for those cold launchers to accommodate at least CAMM-ER dimensions and also this new joint missile if that is going to be even bigger than CAMM-ER. If we are investing in dedicated cold launchers, which I do think is the right thing to do and I hope we do see good packing density, they should at least be able to accommodate not only the extra capabilities already under development such as CAMM-ER if we ever decide to use that but perhaps other stuff that might come along in the future. For instance, MBDA once mocked up a 2-stage VLS Spear 3 which could be interesting and if successful the booster stage might possibly open up opportunities for other vertical cold-launched missiles. Sea Venom is about the same mass as Spear 3 although admittedly about 50% longer and slightly wider. Even working within the volume envelope of CAMM-ER gives a fair amount of space though and I suspect this new joint missile might push the volume envelope slightly bigger which I hope might allow us to exploit the benefits of cold-launch far beyond just CAMM in the future.

          • I think people are misunderstanding what I said, I’m not actually advocating the RN should go for a whole Mk41 silo load out that would not work as the cold launch system for CAMM takes up far less space and is a lot cheaper than MK41 launchers. But what having strike length MK41 silos means is that your average nation would have no idea what that escort could or could not do in regards to surface strike. An AB could easily have a devastating strike package, 20-40 tomahawks on board or it could have not a lot, but a nation can not assume and therefore the Burke’s act as a deterrent and geopolitical tool in a way European escorts cannot remembering just how many silos an AB carries. That’s why.

            If you look into the future even though a type 26 Mk41 silo outfit will be modest, As a deterrent/geopolitical tool it could act in a way closer to a Burke than a type 23 ( which although brilliant at its job delivers no threat beyond a maritime. If we then went for 41 silos in a T31, it would also turn that escort into the same type of geopolitical tool.

            It’s the presences of a suitable number of free MK41 silos along with the knowledge that the navy in-question could fill them with tomahawk or future land attack/strike missiles.

            You could put your strike missiles on deck launchers, not have strike length silos if you want, but your likely limited to 8 and only and that’s it your offering your full set of strike capability,if your other nation thinks, 8 is not such an issue as say what a Burke could hide way ( many 10s) then your not being a deterrent or as us full a geopolitical tool ( it’s the potential threat of overwhelming violence that prevents the need to sometimes use any violence).

      • Exactly so.

        Cold launch has many advantages – the first being cost as compressed gas is well cheap!

        Why you would want to bother putting a cheap munition that can be lunched from simple tubes and clogging up your expensive full length VLS slots is beyond me?

        the only thing that achieves is increasing cost and complexity.

        CAMM is a sovereign tech solution. Once it is in a VLS then it is a hybrid that we don’t control bits of the IP of.

        Best off as we are: dedicated full length VLS and a separate cold launch array.

        • That’s really the great thing with both CAMM cold launch and Mk41 silos and this is the thing with the MK41 if we are putting in the MK41 silos anyway, we can add whatever the RN wants, has or needs. It’s not really a zero sum question, if we are having MK41 launchers why would we say well we’re not going to quad pack CAMM or a new longer ranged version as we always and only put them cold launch systems.

          Agree we should be having the cheap cold launch system for CAMM it’s cheap ( ish) and has a low weight, penetration into the hull ect. But if we also have 16 MK 41 silos, and happen to want to increase the ability of an escorts AAW then sticking in some quad launched CAMM whatever’s would be sound.

          one of the great things about having MK41 launchers is the ambiguity, so best use it in anyway the RN may happen to want or need and keep opponents guessing.

          But I would not advocate change the cold launch systems out, as they are cheap and effective for CAMM, which is their specific point.

          • If you put a Mk 41 on a ship put something worth while in it like a 5+ M strike length Tomahawk.
            Forget ambiguity. An RN ship with CAMM in dedicated launchers means everyone else will know that the Mk41 has a latest Block Tomahawk that can be Anti Ship or Land attack. That will focus their attention when it gets a few hundred Kms from the coast.

          • Very true, but when you have a budge that means scrimping and not buying At the right level to ensure every launcher is full a bit of ambiguity works.

            Personally I agree the RN should fill every silo on every deployment and it would make a greater impact.

            Also sometimes you may just need more AAW and less strike, so flexibility is good as well and if you can pack in some more CAMMs on something with limited numbers, if that’s the what’s needed to manage the threat then why not. After all CAMM has an ASuW role as well so 16 on a T31s ( assuming they later get MK41 silos) is a smaller number than you many want for a specific deployment.

            My rule in life has always been get the most out of every resources you can and design everything to be as flexible as you can make it, because you never know what you will need and you many not know the full need until the need is on you and if you cannot quickly adapt your resources your totally buggered, so a thing you have decided you can stick a number of things in has it’s advantages over a thing you only stick one thing in.

      • The voice of wisdom is always welcome, American stuff is expensive, not necessarily the best and there is no incentive in the US system to make it cheaper.

      • “The silo could be a group of the square topped CAMM launch boxes (just as the Army Sky sabre is on its truck) next to each other achieving a good VLS density without all the complexities and cost of a Mk41.”

        Yes! But why isn’t it? Why not have 96 silos instead of 24 in the same space? You wouldn’t even have to have them all hooked up initially if you didn’t want to spring for the launch controllers. You wouldn’t have to buy more missiles to put in it.

        Both are statements of intent. Being forced to remove and throw away the proposed low-density silos in order to increase missile density is a pychological detererrent to doing so. Whereas having the silos installed just waiting to be hooked up is an inducement to increase capacity.

        • The launch control boxes and cables are not that big an issue. They are pretty similar in size and function to the old SW VL boxes.
          I think the number of missiles you can put in the air isd the limiting factor for the data link…not that 16 missiles going in 16 different directions at 16 different targets at different altitudes and speeds is much of a limiting factor!

    • “Defence Ministers sign agreement to work closely on Air Defence Complex Weapons”

      It’s literally the first line of the press release. In fact its referenced all over it, including CAMM and Narew. What on earth are you reading?

    • I should add…Polish sources are saying it will be a new CAMM variant that is even longer ranged than CAMM-ER…specifically for use with the Polish Patriot system alongside PAC-3 as a cheaper missile than PAC-3 (which isn’t hard..).

      And the Poles are still going to be using CAMM on Pilica, CAMM-ER on the full NAREW system…with ‘CAMM-EX’ on the Patriot system and new Arrowhead 140 Frigates…

      We could be getting a long range SAM by default here…

      • Hopefully CAMM-Ex can then be used on British T31/32/83s and maybe even the T45s and Carriers. It’s all great news but they need to get a bloody move on as UK GBAD is practically non-existent and kind of needed now. But good that there’s energy to further develop UK missile tech. They could have gone with Italy on a tri-nation evolved CAMM-ER? Anyway carry on 🇬🇧 🇵🇱! Any news on the AShMs front?

        • Sorry, I left off the T26s. Good to see the evolution of the CAMM which hopefully, like the ESSM, be quad-packed or just more tightly packed and be carried in greater numbers in a smaller space. It would potentially give the T26s a greater secondary AAW ability, something I think the Australian and Canadian T26s currently have over the UKs. And will the current CAMM silos be able to take the CAMM-EX?

        • CAMM-ER seems to be the mid tier missile, and by all accounts we’re still looking at it for 7 AD. To be honest if CAMM-LR or EX, or whatever, gets developed CAMM-ER could be left out in the cold a little.

          • It will depend on how the CAMM-EX is packaged. Currently CAMM-ER’s container will fit in the same width space as that used by a CAMM container. It is longer, but like the Sky Sabre mounting on the truck, it is already designed to be accomodated. How, this works with a mushroom style launcher in a T23, I’ll leave to Gunbuster. But I’d suspect there’s scope to make the ship containers either slightly deeper, or that they can protrude into the air a bit more. I would expect the T26 and T31 to be designed to accommodate the longer containers.

            To get more range out of CAMM-ER there’s a number of options. But each has a knock effect on the missile’s performance. If you keep the missile the same length as CAMM-ER, but make it fatter. It will now have more drag which will limit its terminal velocity and its glide range performance, i.e its speed will drop faster than CAMM. You could mount booter rockets around the missile’s body, that jettison once they have burnt out. This adds a lot of complexity to the system. The added mass around the tail area will significantly hinder initial manoeuvrability post launch. Which means for the CIWS roll that CAMM has, it may not be suitable.

            You could swap out the rocket motor for a combination pulse jet/rocket motor ala Meteor. The rocket engine is contained with the ramjet’s exhaust, which accelerates it past Mach 1 to enable the ramjet to function after it has burnt out. This is perhaps the best aerodynamically pleasing option, as it will add only a little extra drag due to the inlets. It does make the missile more complex and therefore expensive. But the elephant in the room, is why not use Meteor in the first place? Especially as it has a larger warhead, plus it is getting a much better AESA radar from the Japanese AAM4 missile. From ground use Meteor will still have a range well over 60km.

            The other question is, will the system require soft launching, or will hot launching be acceptable. CAMM-ER has a mass of 160kg, Meteor is 190kg. Can this be soft launched?

            To guarantee range over 100km, you will need a much bigger booster. Look at Aster 30’s for example, The first stage booster is 2.3m long and weighs 340kg and burns out after only 3.5s. But it propels the Aster dart which is 110kg and 2.6m long to Mach 3+. After the dart’s motor burns out, Aster can glide up to an altitude of 25km or so. As it has to make use of the kinetic energy imparted from both motors before they’ve burnt out.

            The Aster dart section and Meteor are around 180mm in diameter. Which means in theory, marrying up the Aster’s booster to Meteor should be doable. This “should” allow Meteor with its longer running pulse jet to reach heights above 30km. Which also means it has a significantly further over the ground range. The downside is that it is hot launched and must use a much bigger launcher.

      • The PAC-3 Patriot was specifically designed to counter theatre to medium range ballistic missiles. The missiles themselves are classed as hittles. The warhead has been reduced in size. Which may explain why it CAMM is being doubled up with it.

  11. If CAMM-EX is designed to fit within Patriot PAC-3 MSE missile launcher, its length shall be 4.85 m. As CAMM-ER is 4.2 m long (0.6 m longer than 3.6 m CAMM), we can add 0.65 m of booster (can Sea Wolf VLS booster be re-used? It similar sized). Extended by 15% but with a bit fatter diameter, let’s assume, say, 20% of mass increase. This gives 160*1.2 = 190 kg missile.

    Not bad I think?

    As the missile gets longer, initial maneuvor may get worse. But, for the close-in reaction, we have CAMM.

    CAMM to >20 km
    CAMM-ER to >45 km
    CAMM-EX to, say, 80-90 km or so?

    Not so bad.

    Completely different idea will be to add a 1.2m booster to 3.2m long CAMM (Use the 1st-booster / 2nd-booster pair as a “dual pulse” motor). The range will be similar, like 80-90 km or so. But, as the final dart is smaller than that of CAMM-ER, may be 100 km range be within scope?

    Again, as the missile gets longer, initial maneuvor may get worse. But, for the close-in reaction, we have CAMM.

    • Once you start getting back to hot launch then the silo, efflux management, launch tube construction, hang fire water drench, missile tip over etc all start to get very complex again.
      If ivan can manage to cold launch a 200 tonne, 40m long Satan2 ICBM I’m sure that some tefal-headed missile nerd at MBDA can work out how to do it for a 3-4 m long 200kg CAMM EX, Y or Z!

      • I agree even with added booster, there is no need to “get back to hot launch”. Let’s keep it cold to make it cool. 😀

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here