MBDA has announced a successful qualification firing of the Medium Advanced Air Defence System (MAADS) using the CAMM-ER missile.
The Italian Air Force is set to replace the SPADA system with MAADS, upgrading their Short Range Air Defence (SHORAD) capabilities and acquiring new capacity at medium range.
This trial marks a significant milestone, as it was the first time the Detection Centre module (BMC4I Sirius with evolved software) was tested and qualified, integrated with the CAMM-ER missile.
The test involved a target drone simulating an attack on the launcher, validating the defence capabilities and performance of both the missile and the entire system in an integrated mode.
During the test, the Detection Centre detected the target drone in attack mode, identified and classified it, and determined the appropriate defence response. It then commanded a successful launch of the CAMM-ER missile to neutralise the threat. The trial also verified the correct functioning of the two-way datalink between CAMM-ER and MAADS.
The success of this qualification is the result of the joint work of the integrated Italian and British teams of MBDA, together with the qualified support of SEGREDIFESA (Segretariato Generale della Difesa e Direzione Nazionale degli Armamenti).
CAMM-ER: A New Generation Air Defence Missile
The CAMM-ER is an extended-range missile developed by the United Kingdom and Italy, and is part of the new generation CAMM family of air defence missiles. The Italian Air Force and Army will replace the Aspide missile with the CAMM-ER in their air defence systems. Additionally, the missile has been integrated into the Albatros NG naval system, which is already being sold abroad to optimise Naval Based Air Defence (NBAD) capabilities of fleets.
The CAMM-ER and CAMM missiles are equipped with an advanced active seeker and a “cold launch” system (Soft Vertical Launch). The CAMM-ER features a different aerodynamic profile and a larger motor, designed by AVIO, to provide an extended range.
I understand the key point of CAMM-ER is its “dual pulse motor”. Can ignite the first half for initial acceleration, and can ignite the second half
Because VL-MICA-blk2 has done this, and improve the range significantly, and VL-MICA is similar in size with CAMM, the original CAMM can also do it. Of course, with less range than CAMM-ER, but still improvement shall be obtained.
Hope for CAMM-blk2 to come!
Fascinating. Thanks for that extra detail & background Donald. The comments on on this web site are often so valuable and add a huge amount to their associated articles. Yours here is a case in point.
Can someone please explain the differences between CAMM-ER and planned extended range CAMM being joint-developed by the UK and Poland? With the (as I understand it) primarily Italian-funded CAMM-ER seemingly making good progress what extra will the UK/Poland developments bring to the table? I realise it might be a bit too early to have much unclassified detail on the UK/Poland developments but I might as well ask anyway in case some stuff has made it into the public domain that I missed.
Disclaimer: I am a massive fan of CAMM, CAMM-ER, and a many other great missiles that MBDA produce so I am not criticising, rather I am trying to understand the overall CAMM picture in terms of extended range versions and how they will fit together.
As far as i can make out the joint UK/Poland development will be in effect a CAAM-MR,so increased range and effects over the existing variants.Note that the programme incompasses more than just the Missiles,Radars and support Vehicles and integration are also incorporated to complete the whole ‘System’.
Nothing is really announced.
Given, current hostilities, detail very likely to go to ground!
Thing is the front of the missile is cost effective and has similar performance to their brands of missile. So why not extend the range?
The UK and Poland compromise will use CAMM-ER it has already been declared.
MBDA has confirmed that work with Poland on land and maritime air defence includes cooperation on the extended-range version of the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM), known as CAMM-ER.
A spokesperson for MBDA told Shephard: ‘MBDA and PGZ continue to work towards land and maritime air defence programmes in multi-layer integrated solutions involving the whole CAMM family.
‘This includes a deep industrial cooperation on CAMM-ER and the common CAMM/CAMM-ER launcher as part of the NAREW programme.’
The MBDA spokesperson added: ‘CAMM-ER features a different aerodynamic profile and a larger rocket motor designed by AVIO in Italy to extend the missile providing an interception range beyond 40 km.’
via Shephard Media
There is CAMM, CAMM ER and the Poles / UK arm of mbda are commencing work on CAMM MR. True medium to long range capability comparable to Patriot range. Following is worth a read.
https://defence24.com/armed-forces/polish-air-defence-enters-a-new-era-commentary
I’m not sure we know. The UK uses CAMM. We could use CAMM-ER in the future, but that’s currently being driven by Italy. As for the timings on Future Common Missile (CAMM-EX), I expect that will be driven by Poland. To see how it fits in, you need to look at Poland’s air defence programmes.
At sea, Poland’s Swordfish (T31) frigates will use Sea Ceptor, probably with CAMM to start with, but maybe also with CAMM-ER in the future.
On land Poland has several new air defence programmes as it transitions away from older Soviet technology. They already have a part-Polish, part UK, part US experimental SHORAD system called Small-Narew (Mała-Narew) with CAMM. They are working on a short-medium range system just called Narew and already have a long-medium range system called Wisła based on Patriot. They also have a fixed-base air-defence system called Pilica, currently used to protect air bases, based on Autocannon and Grom or Piorun missiles (think of an IR-homing Polish Martlet).
To protect high-value mobile systems such as the Wisła batteries, they had been looking to use Narew, but that’s been seen as overkill. So they recently contracted with Britain for Pilica+ (or Pilica 2) to provide another 22 CAMM-based SHORAD systems for £1.9bn. I think that differs from small-Narew in that although the large missiles and launchers are the same, Pilica+ still keeps the accompanying autocannon and Piorun auxilary missiles. Also I’ve read Pilica+ is expected to be stand-alone, whereas the Small-Narew system is integrated into the overall C2 systems and layered defences.
I’m guessing, but I can’t find out for sure, that Narew will use CAMM-ER as well as CAMM, again fully integrating with Wisła. This is the next stage after Small Narew and Pilca+. CAMM was originally recommended as the main Narew missile, but people have been talking about extending the originally expected range of Narew from 25km to 40km. In other words, from CAMM to CAMM-ER.
The Anglo-Polish Future Common Missile is even more speculative. We heard an announcement last October after delivery of the Small-Narew system when the UK and Polish defence ministers met.
“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.”
So about 7 months ago they agreed to talk about the possibility and were developing requirements. As I said at the start we don’t know a lot, but I’m guessing it could substitute in for Patriots in the next generation Wisła system.
It is CAMM and CAMM-ER there is nothing else at present.
You’re mistaken…
A Statement of Intent was signed between the UK and Poland to investigate a CAMM derivative called the Future Common Missile. This will have longer range than the CAMM-ER.
The CAMM-ER purchase by Poland for the NAREW programme has been known about for an age….
The UK will also be looking to get CAMM-ER as well…Cmdr 7 AD Regt has mentioned it and it appears in GMPP returns as Medium Range AD.
But we’ll still be developing an even longer range missile (some have called it CAMM-MR or CAMM-EX)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-agreements-strengthen-uk-poland-defence-relations
Quote from above:
“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.”
Current Polish plans are:
The eventual intention is also to field a CAMM derivative alongside/in the Patriot system to supplement PAC-3 (and perhaps 2) as a lower cost interceptor, previous Israeli attempts selling Stunner having failed.
That is an intent nothing more, there isn’t even an agreement of what is it.
Exactly.
The front end of CAMM is relatively cheap as well as being the best tech out there.
What now for the UK GBAD? CAMM-ER/EX or Polish CAMM? Anything at all?
Can this be quad packed into MK41s? Can it fit into current CAMM silos? Is there a containerised CAMM/ER being developed? I thought I saw something like it on a T32 Adaptive frigate diagram. Better hurry up, Israeli’s already designed C-Dome 4×5 to fit on the back of RAN Arafura OPVs, something similar could done with the Rivers and also fit on RFAs, Bays, Carriers. Come on MBDA, get crackin’!
Sorry, lots of questions.
If UK goes down a GBAD route it will almost certainly be ASTER-NT.
For vase defence systems CAMM is the solution as it does not need a local team (as the missiles are sealed) and can just be an anonymous container.
Well CAMM-ER makes more sense than just CAMM.
A hybrid launcher for a mix of both is also useful. Big difference in weight, length and range. Right choice of missile for the right target. But yes, the longer range preferred.
CAMM-ER will happen in the short/medium term as it already appears in GMPP returns and Cmdr 7 AD Regt has already stated it…
Whether that applies to the Navy is anyones guess as the Army and Navy share the CAMM stockpile. It goes without saying that CAMM-ER would be very useful on T45, 23, 26 and 31. Hopefully there is enough growth margin in the area beneath the cells….the sensible move would be a further shared stockpile of CAMM-ER…
Navy is also re-lifing and upgrading its Aster stockpile. This will make them all Aster 30 (the Aster 15 will get the larger booster, making them Aster 30) and upgraded to Block 1 standard (capable of intercepting anti-ship ballistic missiles and SRBM like Iskander/Kinzhal), that is an increase in capability and effectively doubles the RN’s long range missile stockpile. Plus a relife to boot…
What I think will happen next is the UK (with Poland) will develop the CAMM-MR/EX and get a long range AD system ‘by accident’, a deficiency all have been aware of for a long time…a comparatively inexpensive massive upgrade for the Army and Navy.
The big question is if we push on and purchase Aster 1NT or Aster Block 2 BMD when/if they arrive….if we’re thinking of going down that direction (and I think we should) then our terms of engagement with Eurosam need to change massively…we’re the biggest customer of Aster and that needs to be reflected in some production/industrial benefits/share. Particularly if we’re thinking of retaining/developing the system on the Type 83. Having a number of SAMP/T batteries specifically for BMD would then make sense…but only then…if not threaten to walk away and go with SM-3…
N.B.
Just to note….regarding the CAMM-MR/EX/Whatever….the simplest way to ‘develop’ a long range missile for the Land/Sea Ceptor/Narew systems is to take the data link and tip over mechanism from CAMM, increase the booster size….and stick them on Meteor….MBDA have previously shown images of green painted (i.e. ground launched) Meteor…with a big enough booster to get it to speed and altitude (to let the missile propulsion take over in optimal conditions)…and you get a 150km+ range SAM…
Great post. Thanks
Yes, I was going to say the same. Really comprehensive. Good stuff!
That last bit is interesting, I have wondered why Meteor never gets a mention when ground launched systems are mentioned, it seems like a natural development when one considers its American competitor is so effective in the role. Did try to research the prospect and certainly there is a little discussion on the subject but nothing solid so I would really like to know from someone who knows more about it what the possibilities are and what it would compete with if it ever happened and why it as yet not happened. 150km range would be a game changer and surely interest others.
Meteor is an airbreather that benefits from the jets speed at launch. Think i read somewhere it would need a booster for ground launch. Meanwhile, CAMM MR discussed in the following link has the potential to be comparable to Patriot in range.
https://defence24.com/armed-forces/polish-air-defence-enters-a-new-era-commentary
Strictly speaking Meteor could launch with its engine in rocket mode before transitioning to ramjet (it does this on launch from aircraft, but obviously benefits from speed/altitude of the platform, which means the time spent as rocket is limited before the transition). But you lose a lot of performance doing that (see the Amraam based NASAMS as an example….25km range, less than half that of air launched Amraam). But…a tip over mechanism, like CAMM uses, means the missile can engage at shorter ranges and extends range as energy is not lost in a powered turn. And if you’re integrating a tip over unit you may as well add a solid fuel booster while you’re there…a comparatvely small one could get it to 10,000 ft and m2.0 very easily and allow the ramjet to operate. With soft launch there are even more benefits.
Meteor costs over £1 million a pop. Pretty expensive way to shot down a cruise missile like Kalibre or a drone. It’s designed to kill enemy air superiority , strike and bomber aircraft at significant range with one shot virtual guaranteed kill.
For manned aircraft meteor makes sense, for drones, cruise missiles and the like CAMM/ CAMM-ER would suffice.
The main reason would be cost, plus there could be a political bias. To develop a missile that could effectively compete with the SM6, would be a massive undertaking of resources, time and money. Aster came about because both France and Italy saw a need, then got the UK involved in a Sea Dart replacement. So three countries contributed to the missile’s development. Similarly with the ongoing development. Aster now has the advantage that it is a “legacy” product. Its development over the last 20 years has seen it grow into a system that is very capable. But also has a good engineering basis for further development. Why would France/Italy be willing to use its resources on another competing program?
Meteor on the other hand is relatively new. It was primarily developed to be national asset, where the UK were not reliant on the US. Like Aster, once the product was established other countries, ie Germany and France became involved. Though the UK is the design authority. From these three countries resources became better available for the development of the missile.
Meteor was originally designed to a UK medium range air to air missile requirement, though its scope was broadened to include both French and German needs. For Meteor to be developed into a fully fledged surface to air missile, it will need a number of countries to help shoulder the cost of development and a probable redesign.
Don’t get me wrong, the idea of a SAM based Meteor is tantalising. As it would have a number of significant advantages. Especially when upgraded with the Hitachi AESA radar. Though to maximise the overall advantage, the missile would need a few design changes.
To make sure it has range and a height advantage over Aster. Firstly it would need an additional solid rocket booster stage. Otherwise its potential won’t be achieved and its range would be less than 100km. This is due to the ramjet needing to do all the acceleration work, on top of the small internal solid rocket booster. The additional booster would do the main part of the acceleration. Thereby allowing the small internal solid booster, to top it off, before the ramjet kicked in. to either sustain the cruise, or keep accelerating the missile. In testing ramjets/SCRAMJETS have shown they can continue working up to around 150,000ft, even reaching 170,000ft using a boost, zoom then glide technique.
Secondly the missile has very low drag, due to not using mid-body aerodynamic strakes. Which are used to help generate lift and tighten turns. So at very high altitudes its turning radius will be larger. This can be improved by using mid-body reaction jets to help the missile turn. Which will become increasingly more important at elevated altitudes in rarefied air. Though to include these, some volume of internal fuel will have to be given up, so the four jets (placed at cardinal points) can be located. Or using thrust vectoring from the main exhaust. A combination of the two would be preferential.
I am pretty sure a study has been done on a surface launched Meteor. If AMRAAM can be used in NASAMs, then why not Meteor, perhaps it will be revisited because of NASAMs. They both have a data-link, active radar seeker and use the same 1553 databus to communicate with. However, Meteor has the throttleable ramjet, which means it can go a lot further and faster for longer. Can the internal rocket booster accelerate it to Mach 1.2 from a standing start, to enable the ramjet to work. Otherwise it will need an additional booster. Whereas the latest AMRAAM can be accelerated to Mach 2.5 from a standing start.
It would make a lot of sense for a Meteor block 2, to incorporate a form of thrust vectoring, but also to look at have mid-body reaction jets fitted. As it will help intercept targets at much higher altitudes. So if the air to air version has these mods. Then looking at a surface launched version will make the development that much easier. Getting the Navy/RAF/RA interested in a missile that has near comparative performance to a Block 1 version of SM6. That could be used against a plethora of ballistic missile and re-entry vehicle threats, I’m sure would gain a lot of interest.
“… if not threaten to walk away and go with SM-3” – You could add SM-6 to that calculus too. It provides a very flexible capability beyond its terminal BMD defence. Both provide insurance against issues with European development/delay/lack of industrial benefit for the UK in the Aster program. Probably at least in part a reason for the move to Mk41. A T26 with CEC could leverage T45 for targeting prior to T83 being operational. Much easier for the UK to qualify Aster 30 in Mk41 than for Europe to develop BMD missiles, where SM-3 has taken significant resources from Japan and the US to get where it is today.
The problem is do we want to be reliant on the US (or even worse Israel) for defence needs. I’d say no. We already spend far too much with the US.
Ultimately we have MBDA so we want to support them, but we must have industrial/economic benefit from Aster if we continue with it into the future.
As for Mk.41 I honestly can’t see the point in it for us. We either need to be all Sylver or all Mk.41. At present Mk.41 gives us nothing, the only missile’s we’d be interested in are Tomahawk and ASROC-VL. In Tomahawk’s case we’re developing FCASW and ASROC-VL is old…and far outclassed by MBDA’s canister launched MILAS. We could even get Stingray added to MILAS.
If we were going to stancardise on Mk.41 we should have done it with Aster on T45. Now I’d say the time has passed and we should go all in on Sylver, the real risk with Mk.41 is we end up always buying from the US and shooting our own industry in the foot…
I agree with your points on the US and MBDA. CAMM and Meteor are examples of successful UK led programs, where the latter’s success is in part very probably because we didn’t try to dominate or hog the benefits and as a result many countries have adopted it. It is also clearly a missile the US should have adopted but for NIH and vested interests.
IMV Mk41 is insurance today and I agree we should have bitten the bullet and qualified Aster for it on T45 at time of build. MBDA failing to qualify Aster for MK41 was a lost opportunity given the active seeker advantage of Aster over ESSM/SM-2 up until the active seeker programs on those two missiles.
While I would be reluctant to source missiles from the US, they do have the most advanced BMD capability currently. They have also historically maintained deeper inventories, should we need rapid supply inside manufacturing lead-times. Beyond BMD Tomahawk, despite upgrades, is an old missile. I don’t see it as a solution for the RN surface fleet or ultimately the sub fleet either. ASROC is well past sell-by date. However, I do think there is scope for the UK to develop a VLA ASW solution, but based on a smaller/lighter torpedo, similar to Northrop’s Very Lightweight Torpedo. Such a torpedo would be useful across a range of platforms from close in torpedo defence and ASW to longer ranges more aligned with providing a threat to subs at the range of heavy torpedoes and might leverage common systems from the the Future Lightweight Torpedo.
In any event, the benefit of the UK going with Mk41 is that whatever derives from the FCASW program can equip both Sylver and Mk41 fleets, including many European navies using the latter. Ditto for any other European VLS launched solutions that the UK uses. A larger WW market further helps fund European missile development and reduce costs.
Good post too GHF!
Was there any looking into putting the Asters in MK41s?
Sorry, I’ve no idea if that took place at the time. Lockheed promote Mk41 as being capable of supporting it, i.e. “Future missile integration could include Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM), Common Anti Air Modular Missile (CAMM), ASTER, Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) and Barak”
ASTER is developing ASTER 30 1NT and eventually block 2 that will be capable against ballistic missiles. We do not need to buy SM6.
CAMM-ER/EX might be a poor cousin of Aster but like you say could readily be spread across the fleet. I think the RFAs, Bays, Albions, Rivers, Argus and Carriers could all utilise some form of containerised CAMM to pair up with their Phalanx’s and guns. All ships and their crew are precious assets and need significant protection beyond 2-2.5km. And then there’s always the sub surface threat.
Just to point out, Aster-1NT is in no way comparable to SM3, as SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interception missile. Though I bet it does have some endoatmospheric capabilities, that Raytheon are not publishing. Again SM6 is also in a different league, as it’s designed to counter targets around 100,000ft. With the next iteration going up to 150,000ft. The Block 1NT is more comparable to the SM2-ER in terms of range, but has significantly more performance capability, due its better active radar and mid-body reaction jets.
So far MBDA (France/Italy) have been very quiet on the development of the Block 2 BMD. It took Raytheon over 20 years before the SM3 had a better than 75% chance of hitting a target flying in low earth orbit. Do MBDAS have the resources to research and develop such a missile system? If anything, it’s my opinion that MBDA will develop Aster into a competitor to SM6/THAAD first, as that is significantly easier to do than a SM3. Though the SAMP/T will need a significantly better radar, for this type of very high altitude interception.
I have proposed using Meteor as a surface launched missile before. Ramjets (especially throttleable ones) offer significant advantages over solid rocket motors. This is because the missile no longer needs to carry an oxidizer, so more fuel can be carried by volume. Thereby giving more range for missiles of the same comparable size.
Meteor is a two stage missile, as it carries a rocket booster, which is used to enable the ramjet to work. This is contained within the ramjet’s exhaust. It is sufficient get the missile up past supersonic and to Mach 3. But only when carried under an aircraft, that also imparts energy to the missile before launch. From a standing start, Meteor will need a substantially bigger booster, especially from sea level.
The Aster dart (final stage) is 2.6m long, 0.18m in diameter (0.36m wingspan) with a mass of 110kg. Whereas, Meteor is 3.65m long, 0.18m in diameter and a mass of 190kg. So Meteor is longer and heavier than the Aster dart.
The Block 1NT will increase the interception altitude to around 65 to 70,000ft (depending on who the publisher is). In interception of ballistic threats, altitude is key. The ability to engage a target as high as possible, allows you enough time for second shot if the first misses.
Luckily the MBDA parts bin has a number of options of adding a bigger booster to Meteor. The boosters used for Aster 30 in particular. Could be adapted for Meteor, as the Aster dart is a similar diameter to the Meteor. Performance wise, this combination would be outstanding. Aster 30 can be accelerated to over Mach 4.5 (published). Meteor now being a 3 stage system, would have a similar performance. Even though its heavier, it carries more fuel for accelerating the missile. So the forecasted terminal velocity would be at least Mach 4.5 probably a better. Range wise still over 100 miles, but critically interception altitude will be well above 80,000ft, probably closer to 90,000ft. To go higher it would really need a bigger booster, similar to SM6s.
The main disadvantage compared to Aster, is that it does not have the mid-body reaction jets. These would become more important the higher the missile gets. If Meteor was to get mid-body reaction jets, some of the fuel volume would be needed to be given up and thereby reducing range. But the missile would have a much better performance at engaging very high altitude targets. Plus if it’s using the improved Hitachi AESA radar. It will be able to better discriminate the true target against decoys.
Food for thought!
Not sure why you would wish to turn Meteor into a SAM we already have ASTER and CAMMS. The Motor technology on Meteor is very advanced and could be used on a SAM in the future. However we do not meed Meteor as a SAM….
That’s like saying why bother having NASAMs that uses AMRAAM, when there’s already Patriot and Avenger!
You are missing the point of why Meteor would be a better SAM than Aster. The ramjet is the key. Being air breathing it doesn’t need to carry an oxidizer as well as the fuel like a solid rocket does. Therefore, more fuel can be carried in the same volume. This means that either the missile can travel at its terminal velocity, or cruise at a reduced speed for longer. Or more importantly, for very high altitude targets it can be used to carry on accelerating the missile. Remembering that as the missile travels through more rarified air and it’s still producing thrust, it will travel faster. Thereby bringing down the time to target interception.
Interception height and velocity is key to engaging ballistic targets. As you want to trade height for time, so you have time to fire a second missile, in case the first misses and so on.
Being able to climb to say 60,000ft plus also gives an advantage when engaging targets that are a long way off. As the height gives the missile additional potential energy when falling on to the target. Again the ramjet helps here for the same reasons mentioned above. Plus when falling on to say an aircraft target. The missile’s seeker is presented with the top profile of the aircraft, making it easier to detect and track.
The fact of the matter is that a Meteor used as a SAM, would outperform Aster in most respects. Like I said, if it was paired with the Aster 30 booster, it would put it in a similar league to SM6 block 1 for capabilities. This is predominantly due to the advantages of using a ramjet over a solid rocket motor. For Aster to reach a similar range or altitude it would need a substantially bigger booster.
So why settle for good, when you could have better?
Yes I am sure it would be great to have lots of extra SAM systems. However the reality is tgat the UK only has a limited budget for SAM systems – we are not the USA. Would you rather have fewer CAMMS or ASTER? Also the Meteors you use for SAMs are not used on our planes. It would be great to have money for everything but we do not.
I agree the propulsion system on Meteor is very advanced and would firm the basis of future weapons e,g, an ASTER with Meteor propulsion and the new Japanese AESA radar. Now that would be putting money into. Tinkering with a Meteor SAM would just be a financial distraction from funding to existing SAM systems.
P.S. I suspect that the ASTER dart is more agile then Meteor. And yes I am aware of how Meteor works….
To try and answer some of your questions, can CAMM-ER be quad packed into a Mk41 yes. One reason why I would like the forward CAMM launchers on the T26 replaced with a Mk41 tactical length block. It would give the T26 32 CAMM-ERs and 24 CAMMs. Can the CAMM-ER fit into the current CAMM tube location on a T26, No they are about one meter longer and 24 mm larger in diameter. Is there a containerised version being developed. Depends on what you mean with containerised, but I would imagine yes, the missile does not need servicing as such and is launched from its own launch tube so sticking 8-10 into a container with air con and power does not seem to difficult.
Some other questions came up like CAMM-ER is better than just CAMM, well No. For the ability to engage at range yes, but CAMM is a point defence sysytem that can engage at a few hundred meters if need be, the ER version has a longer minimum range.
In ref the GBAD yes it would make sense to have both ASTER and CAMM for GBAD. Both working side by side ASTER for the area defence and CAMM for point defence of the ASTER sites. I did work out that the UK needs only four ASTER sites and six CAMM locations to cover all critical base locations with expected lines of missile/air attack. The four Aster locations would be NE Scotland (Lossiemouth), NW Scotland (Clyde),Yeovilton to cover Plymouth, Portsmouth, Portland Downs etc and Boston to cover the RAF and USAF bases in Lincolnshire/Norfolk. Each with a CAMM system. Plymouth and Brize Norton to have a CAMM-ER. GBAD sorted.
So would I like to see CAMM-ER in use by the RN and Army yes, its better to start knocking bad guys out at 40km rather than 25km. I would also like to see a full salvo fire of CAMM as I do wonder how it would repond to a saturation attack.
Can the CAMM-ER fit into the current CAMM tube location on a T26? — I will say yes.
Forget the mushroom farm on T23. The CAMM fit was made like that to avoid lots of steel work, to speed up the conversion and to keep costs down. A cylindrical adaptor was added to the top of the deck cut outs . Originally you inserted the legacy cylindrical Sea Wolf VL launch containers that held the missile into the round holes in the deck and bolted the containers down.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/uploads/2022/10/Sea-Wolf.jpg.webp
With CAMM you have a square cross section , rectangular in length cannister that sits inside a round adaptor piece. The cannister is secured in place with a simple mechanical fixing arrangement at the top and at the deck inside the magazine compartment
On a new build you don’t need a mushroom farm or an adaptor piece because its not legacy…You never had VL Sea Wolf to begin with. The cannisters could sit in square holes in the deck and be a lot closer together . They can still use the same simple fixing arrangements to secure the CAMM cannister. Imagine a Sky Sabre type missile arrangement but with a deck around the top of it
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/webp-express/webp-images/uploads/2021/07/Land-Ceptor-1.jpg.webp
As for the missile length, do what the RN has always done . Look at T23 and T45 . The top of the tube is not flush with the main deck. A deck house is built to accommodate the extra length of the missile above deck. This means additional compartments on the upper deck for fan spaces and part of ship lockers. It also puts space and steel between the outside of the ship and the missile warhead improving RATTAM protection and means the warhead isn’t nestling inside the ships main structure if it goes off…
Anyway ThinkDefence has some outstanding stuff on Complex Weapons including CAMM.
Common Anti Air Missile (CAMM) – Think Defence
If you havent already got it bookmarked I suggest you do…(just excuse the pallets and containers…)
Ron
For the T26, I would suggest it may be easier to fit 3 x 3 cell stand alone ExLS (CAMM-ER length version) rather than a 8 cell mk41 as they are single row (also cheaper). ie a single row up against the 24 mk41. It may have less below deck effect. That would also give you 36 instead of 32 missiles.
CAMMs is not just point defence… it is listed as 25+ kms however in tests it range was reported as around 50km – so not point defence only. Sea Ceptor is an area defence missile capable of defending a task group.
I think ASTER 30 and CAMMS is a good combination. It would be good to have a mix of ASTER 30 block 1 (latter 1NT and block 2), CAMMS and CAMMS-ER.
Hopefully the Type 83 will have a mix of such missiles. Also directed energy weapons. More advanced CIWS are needed to replace Phalanx.
Hi Rob N, I agree, maybe I did not explain myself clearly. I think for the T26 and all RN frigates a combination of CAMM and CAMM-ER would be a good idea. The reason that we need to keep CAMM is because the minimum range is a few hundred meters. Which is point defence, whilst the ER version would be about 1.5 km. I do understand that CAMM is a local area defence system.
I totally agree with your T83 missile mix in the air defence mode.
The CAMM-ER is still soft launched and has the four reaction jets in the tail. So in theory the minimum interception distances should be the same as a standard CAMM.
Any chance the UK could order a few batteries for defence of critical infrastructure eg key RAF airfields, naval bases, ammo depots, C3 centres?
Will the RN get the extended range missile for T45 and T26/T31/33?
The ER version would be especialy good on T45 adding more reach to its fleet defence.
I am not aware that would be possible to upgrade CAMM to CAMM-ER so i would say that RN will not buy CAMM-ER.
We could just buy CAMM-ER instead assuming that the VLS could be fit the larger missile.
Both CAMM and CAMM-ER use the same forebody, that contains the seeker, proximity sensor, computer and warhead. The main difference is the rocket motor section, as it is a lot bigger and longer on the CAMM-ER. So technically you could swap the fire bodies from one to the other.