MBDA and PGZ have entered into a collaborative agreement for the development of a new medium-range interceptor, the CAMM-MR missile.
The announcement was made during MSPO 2023 in Kielce.
This missile is being engineered to address advanced ground and naval air defence requirements at medium distances.
The collaboration between MBDA and PGZ is a follow-up to an agreement between the UK and Polish governments. This agreement was formed as a part of the UK-Poland 2030 strategic partnership to push the development of a shared missile based on the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) family.
The Polish Ministry of National Defence has contracted the creation of this new CAMM-MR missile concept. The missile’s purpose is to boost the integrated air and missile defence (IAMD) capacities of the MIECZNIK, PILICA+/NAREW/WISLA programs, complementing the existing CAMM & CAMM-ER missiles.
Eric Béranger, the CEO of MBDA, expressed his views on the collaboration, stating: “This joint working on a new missile is a historic step for our companies and for the development of European solutions for the Defense of Europe. MBDA was created to champion the cross-border development of missile systems in Europe and so we’re very proud to be working in concert with PGZ and Poland on this exciting new project.”
Sebastian Chwałek, the President of the Management Board of PGZ S.A., spoke about the intentions behind the letter of intent (LOI). He mentioned: “This particular LOI is intended to pave the road map of future activities that both PGZ and MBDA should undertake to engage in design, development and production of CAMM-MR.
We also call this initiative as Future Common Missile to convey our aspiration it will serve both the Polish and British Armed Forces as common munition with dual source of production. This is a new chapter for PGZ and we are very motivated to engage especially in design and development with assets that we have at hand or being implemented right now e.g. HWIL Laboratory, as a solid and strategic partner of MBDA.”
Is the MR shorter range than the ER variant?
CAMM is growing into quite the family of missiles.
I can see the point of something optimised for costs to defend airfields etc.
No. MR is much longer ranged.
CAMM has a stated range of 25km+, in reality its more like 40km
CAMM-ER has a stated range of 45km+, in reality its >70km
CAMM-MR has a range of >100km…likely significantly more, probably approaching 150km.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek.
I’ve seen various stats about the various flavours!
MR is more like max range!
The fact they’re calling it MR is something that a lot have missed….clearly leaving space for an LR variant in the future….
That’s true but also missiles have had ‘short’ or ‘medium’ in their names without ever having longer range versions developed from them so it can’t be assumed it’s a deliberate hint. That said I think this family of missiles is only going to expand esp when it has so many interested parties involved to encourage and exploit its expansion capabilities and the potential of the shared costs make it more practical to do so. The Poles in particular developing its short, medium and long range integrated network may desire eventually to incorporate as far as possible related missiles to cover… Read more »
Maksymalny, mega, monster,…..I’m going for Monster range.
Are we buying any?
The MR doesn’t exist yet. When it does will find out then…I suspect we will, both for the RN and Army.
It is a collaboration that was announced by BW.
As the front end of the missile is the same as CAMM it would be backwards compatible with Sky Sabre.
Army want a longer range version of Sky Sabre (OK will need a better radar) and I can certainly see that these would be very useful for airfield/navy base defence etc.
Maybe, if the LR variant does materialise, it will take over from A30 in the AAW role.
would it have the same capabilities as A30 ? yes CAMM it’s it good missile but I’m not sure it’s able to survive or achieve the same G manoeuvres as an A30 with the A30 being a hit to kill missile. Having a mix of standard CAMM and MRCAMM would give all RN escorts an even better short/medium range area defence capability any numbers issues around the AAW platforms would become a bit redundant. Maybe a MRCAMM armed type 26 would be a bit restricted by radar and not match a T45, but nothing matches a T45 sensor set up… Read more »
I think ASTER will be retained.
But I think CAMM flavours will be on other ships and in addition too.
Before Sea Wolf there wasn’t really anything effective. Fig leaf stuff.
Although these are, of course, there as layered anti missile missiles as much as AAW.
Could T45 eventually have the capability to take control of MR or LR from another platform thus exploiting its superior sensors.
They are sensor agnostic to a large degree so I would imagine queuing from another platform would be possible.
Ceptor and Sabre need to know where the target and the missile are in 3d space. Where that info comes from is pretty much immaterial. The system does the trig calculations, sends corrections via data link and lets the missile go active when it needs to Missiles used to have there own specific analogue control frequencies. That way telling a specific missile to do something didnt make every missile in the air do the same something. That wasnt just for the firing ship but also any ships in the vicinity. Every ship had control very secret frequencies unique to its… Read more »
The Artisan radar is better than the 996 it replaced. 996 had some issues but we could detect targets with it out to 100+miles. IFF tracking was even longer ranged.
Radars are the easy part. Its straight forward stuff sending out wiggilies to hit a target, reflect back and be received.
Its the signal processing and track extractors that do the hard work.
The British-Polish armaments development agreement could well prove to be one of the most fruitful and enduring legacies of Big Ben’s tenure at MoD. Patently obvious the consortium is going to sell a huge volume of CAMM family munitions, The same agreement armaments agreement may be extended to include cooperative development and production of an export version of Arrowhead 140/T-31, possibly newly developed containerized MCMV systems, and tri-party armor development w/ Poles and S. Koreans. Additionally, believe there will be a large block of motivated Eastern European militaries that will be predisposed to purchase some or all of these weapon… Read more »
. The same agreement may be extended…🙄. (Anyone else having trouble engaging edit function?)
To be honest the link between Poland and the UK has alway been a very strong one culturally…it’s just one of those oddities where there seems to be great appeal that works. There are around 700,000 Polish British which is one of the largest minority groups in the UK. There have also been 3 distinct Polish diasporas into the UK, 1800c, WW2 and the 2000s…which has led to Polish being the second most spoken language in England. I’ve looked after a lot of poles in my time be they RAF pilots or soldiers from WW2 or more recent migrants….my kids… Read more »
Unfortunately a large part of potential European customers have already purchased IRIS-T variant’s, or are about to as part of a wider German-led European programme, then there are the Patriot users and a decent number of NASAM’s users. I expect CAMM’s sales market in Europe to be mainly UK, Italy and Poland. Which in volume terms will probably make it Europe’s main SAM. Beyond that CAMM’s real export potential is outside of Europe where it is making very good sales. Suspect the ME is one of MBDA’s prime targets.
The Sabre system integrates with any existing radar system. Thats the beauty of it. It needs a radar that can track the target and the missile. As long as it receives that information it can data link the missile in towards the target before allowing it to go active and do its own thing.
It can take data from Patriot radars and use that to send a missile at a target. It could probably use modern Civilian 3D air traffic control radars if it has to.
I thought civilian ATC radars were passive?
Maybe way out of date?
Normal radars. However as civvy aircraft use transponders thats mostly what you see on screen. The RN can also do IFF tracking as the tracking range with something actively pinging back at you is far greater. If an aircraft doesnt use a transponder (pesky russian Tu 95 Bears) you still see it as a radar ” blip” but not the transponder data. Again signal processing and track extraction is the clever bit. Most radars nowadays dont let the user see raw radar data. They do the track extraction themselves and put a track block on a display screen for you.… Read more »
‘Raw’ radar data isn’t something for a CRT anymore! The sheer quantity and quality of data from these systems is awe inspiring.
That said it is hard to jam the human brain so sometimes looking at a less processed feed can give an idea of tricks being deployed.
Certainly flicking between processing modes and comparing outputs used to be a thing.
Although I’m pretty sure, based on pure semi informed guesswork, that the current crop of blade based systems will do that automatically and flag up any omits.
CAMM do not have 40km range, it is a 99kg missile.
Better tell MBDA then….because thats what they told Janes…
Asraam reaches 60km, as the RAAF let slip, so 40km from ground launch at some targets shouldn’t be a surprise…
I concur, 40km max seems very likely. MBDA, (in fact the west in general) quote guaranteed kill ranges. Russia / China tend to quote maximum theoretical range.
“UK has provided Supercat based launchers for MBDA AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles to Ukraine, they can engage air targets at a range of up to 25km’ so judging by this figure for an 88kg missile Camm at 99kg no doubt will have a range potentially well in excess of that, so yes 40 is probably not unthinkable, well over thirty a given.
Different kettle of fish launching at, say, M0.7 at altitude to latching static vertically from ground level.
This is true. And a lot depends on the type of target, altitude, height, how cooperative it is…CAMM’s soft launch and attitude control at lanch do help a fair bit though…
Yup.
I don’t think most people appreciate how much fuel is burned just getting a missile clear of the launcher.
Getting a missile to start to accelerate and therefore enter the efficient burn phase regime is significant.
I’m pretty sure the 40km quote was actually from MBDA and related to the trials and test fires they did with CAMM. the west alway generally seems to underplay it’s range in the same way Russia always overplays.
I can neither confirm or deny… But its a shed load more than the advertised 25+ km. Obviously that is altitude dependent.
Without going to deep into missile theory at max range any missiles speed will be dropping off and its manouverability will decrease, reducing the hit chance against a target. It doesnt mean it wont hit but you may need a second shot… Or Not…
MR is thought to be significantly longer range, with ER sitting in the middle. There was a lot of speculation last year with ranges like 80km being bandied about. Nothing official.
Poland has a Pilica+ programme for airbase defences using CAMM, and also a small-Narew mobile system also with CAMM. We also know they expect to get CAMM-ER, and I think that will be Narew. The bigger Wisla systems recently had PAC-3 Patriots ordered. I’d guess MR will slot into the Wisla programme as a cheaper alternative, as well as into the frigates.
MR has already been confirmed as >100km by MBDA Pilica is Piorun, modernised ZU-23-2 and CAMM. It’s not for airbase defence it is specifically to defend the Wisla/Patriot systems. Narew is CAMM-ER, possibly with some CAMM for extreme close range defence. This is for wider defence tasks. Contracts for all the above have been signed. Pilica for at least 800 missiles, Narew for 1000+ CAMM-ER. How CAMM-MR fits into this is unclear. It will go on the Frigates, but would need an integration campaign for the Patriot system. It might be that MR is fired by the Pilica system (which… Read more »
Let’s hope the powers that be order some of these CAMM-MR’s for the UK GBAD before too long. It will be interesting to see if it is quadpackable into the MK41s and whether the RN might then order some for the T31 and T26s for a longer range air defence and as a complement the shorter range CAMM and if they can operate in parallel. I’d like to see the CAMM/MR on an Iron Dome 3*5 type launcher set up. And I won’t mention it for the carriers… Lol 😁
MR will not be quadpackable in Mk41. It is believed to be twin-packable however (like some SM-2 proposals).
What would be really useful is a CAMM-SR variant. A really cheap interceptor, perhaps based on an unguided rocket motor, like Rheinmetall Denels Cheetah. Adding a C-RAM/C-UAS capability would be very useful….
Sounds like CAMM.
A cheaper version….Cheetah was cheaper than a couple of bursts of AHEAD ammunition. Price was down to less than $35k a shot.
I’m assuming MR will be wider than CAMM/ER to get the distance. Will it still fit in the bespoke CAMM solos? I assumed it would go there rather than the Mk41s.
Yes it will be considerably wider. Whilst CAMM/CAMM-ER is quadpackable in Mk.41 you can only get 2 CAMM-MR in.
As for the rest….we simply don’t know. Its very early days.
That doesn’t make any sense :/ , if they are wider then they take up more space in width and breadth so even diagonally packed they wouldn’t fit, its 1 or 4.
See post 239 at the below link that should explain it…
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/taildog-sraam-asraam-family.5619/page-6
MBDA have confirmed that quad pack won’t happen. They also showed this image of CAMM-MR firing from Mk.41
https://imgur.com/AXE1Qmb
Or try this….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
Camm doesnt need silos. It launches from its own stowage box. Where and how you put that box is up to the user.
For instance As long as the box cross section is smaller than the round hole on a T23 legacy VLSW silo it would go on a T23. It would stick out above deck more meaning a longer spool piece would be needed (the Mushroom bit) to secure the top of it.
For any other vessel as long as you can secure the box into the deck you would be good to go.
As you say the whole Mk.41/ExLS thing is a red herring for CAMM. Standalone ExLS may be a sensible option as Canada and Saudi will integrate it and pay the money. But putting CAMM/CAMM-ER in one of our hugely expensive, and limited number, of Mk.41 would be the height of folly. There’s potentially a case for it if we go down the CAMM-MR route due to the size of the missile….but….the history of foreign weapons being integrated in Mk.41 is near non-existent…the actual range of missile types integrated in Mk.41 and operational is very limited. Incredibly so after 40 years… Read more »
I agree.
We need to keep CAMM sovereign otherwise we risk it being ITAR’d.
Also it isn’t just pop a missile in any old Mk41 VLS slot. Each VLS group (usually 8) has to be wired for the missile specific controller cabinet. A CAMM cabinet controls 12(?) missiles….
No sense in using Mk41 which is a hot launch designed system for cold launch.
CAMM, like all UK manufactured guided weapons now and in the future will remain specifically ITAR free. There is no desire to find ourselves in that position again. Personally I find the RN’s interest in Mk.41 utterly baffling…when you think of it rationally there is no reason to not stick with Sylver. We don’t use US SAM’s, we have our own…. The only US SAM’s that could potentially be of use would be SM-6 and SM-3…but if we’re honest the Treasury would never fund these…plus Aster 30 1NT (on contract already) and a potential Blk.2 for BMD would be far… Read more »
I’m inclined to agree.
I suspect there is French politics involved in this and wanting to move away from a specific stranglehold.
Problem is we’d be going from a French stranglehold to a US stranglehold…
If there is a French issue I suspect it could have been resolved easily. The RN has a lot of hold over the Aster/Sylver eco-system as they are one of, if not the biggest user.
I don’t get the LM tie up given how F35B weapons integration has played out. There must be a plan……. I must say I was banging on about Mk41 for T45 and T31 for a long time on here but I’ve cooled a bit given the F35 issues. I agree A70 strike tubes might make more sense. Maybe that will be the surprise pivot? Maybe the Mk41 announcement was to pressure the French to give some ground? There is also the export side of T26 and T31 in which Mk41 is seen as the standard. The French haven’t done much… Read more »
An Image of CAMM-MR being fired from a mk41 cell on a polish Miecknitzk frigate has already been released and it shows it being double packed – blob:https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/30146609-0ca0-4105-b669-96bdc781f950
Good info but I think you misspoke on IBCS. IBCS was developed by Northrop Grumman for the US army and Poland is the first fms customer to buy it.
They’re getting IBCS but its integrated with another Polish system.
Thanks for the correction on Pilica and the confirmation on the 100km+ for MR. All interesting stuff.
Just to add Pilica will also contain Polish radars and a yet to be revealed C-UAS system as well. That could be an EW soft kill system but may also have effectors..
Aah you thinking seems to concur with mine, certainly sounds like a sensible objective for Poland for aim of self sufficiency, flexibility and cost savings.
What’s also interesting about CAMM-MR is that the official marketing material shows two munitions fitting into a single Mark-41 VLS of an Arrowhead-140 ship meaning we could see it dual-packed on the Mieczniks and Type 31s.
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CAMM-MR.jpg
What’s the altitude envelope for CAMM? Can it prevent being bombed from 40k feet?
Excellent question range and altitude are mathematically speaking rather inter-dependent I assume.
If we assume that CAMM is approximately equivalent to Aster 15 in range, then perhaps we can take Aster 15’s max flight altitude as indicative too. That’s 13km, or a little over 42,000 ft. Given that it’s all approximate, I’ll give that a resounding maybe.
Very hard to compare two very different approaches.
A15 is a slightly old school very brute force approach.
CAMM is lighter but cleverer – using its lower mass but cold launch to gain initial velocity together.
Chalk’n’cheese
CAMM will struggle to reach 40,000ft…CAMM-ER apparently will hit 65,000ft but the range from the platform will be limited. CAMM-MR is >100km range and 65,000ft+ so should be able to engage at that height at a reasonable range.
I hope to see CAMM MR on T45 extra reach on our anti-air ships would be very welcome. We should keep the ASTER 30s as they are more capable against more challenging targets.
This is all very good news… I hope it does not take decades to do by which rime it is out of date.