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 at the peak of the trajectory to significantly improve the range (long-range) or at the final stage of the flight to significantly improve the agility by using TVM, and even after burn-out, still with much better agility thanks to higher speed. 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.