MBDA has completed a test firing of the CAMM-ER extended range air defence missile against a manoeuvring target.
The trial took place at an Italian firing range. CAMM-ER is the extended range member of the new-generation CAMM air defence family of systems.
All members of the CAMM family share the same cutting-edge active radar seeker and soft-launch system, with CAMM-ER featuring a larger rocket motor designed by AVIO to provide extended range out beyond 40km.
The firm say that CAMM-ER was designed to replace the Aspide munition in the Medium Advanced Air Defence System (MAADS) of the Italian Air Force and the GRIFO air defence system of the Italian Army.
“CAMM-ER is the missile that will be used in the Albatros NG system, which provides an optimized naval based air defence (NBAD) solution to enhance the defence capabilities of naval fleets.”
Successful launch of our #CAMM-ER against a manoeuvring target confirms excellent capability of the CAMM family #missile systems for air defence.
Do you want to know more? … https://t.co/uUji5bG1BQ pic.twitter.com/uaOA9WxUwj— MBDA (@MBDAGroup) June 24, 2021
Are these the same as Sea Ceptor? Or is that the non-ER variant?
Sea Ceptor is the Non- ER Variant,that is correct.
CAMM-ER is a programme the RN should get into. Yes we have our specialist air defence destroyers to provide umbrella cover for the carrier or amphibious groups but frigates operating independently currently only have the point air defence Sea Ceptor which has limited range. If we could somehow integrate a mix of CAMM & CAMM-ER onto those frigates they would be able to protect other ships from the air threat (as in convoy ops) & the ability to engage targets further out would improve the survivability of the frigates as they would be able to engage at greater range with… Read more »
Additionally it would change land ceptor into a wide area defense instead of a point one. Would significantly improve our ability to defend key areas if needed.
Good point. The Army’s lack of air defence worries me. With this emphasis on deep fires in the defence review it would rather stupid not to think the opposition haven’t got the same idea.
As I understand the Sky Sabre the Israelis have put together a modular system such that a CAMM launcher can easily be swapped out for a CAMM-ER launcher.
Not quite correcy the existing Sky Sabre launchers can already take the ER.
Ah, sounds good. Thx for the info.
You’d think integration wouldn’t be an issue, similar software etc, and they both fly out of Mk41 don’t they?
No, this missile does not use the Mk41. There is a design to put a quad pack container into a Mk41 slot but it’s not in service anywhere.
Can’t find it but. Outdoor have sworn there was a discussion on another thread saying how the T26 will be able to accommodate Sea Cepter and a medium range missile type in its silos with a range in excess of 40km. If Camm ER does this job too why separate the missile types. Or was I dreaming.
Now I think about it it must have been the debate on the T26 thread about the Canadian/Australian versions choosing SeaCepter but also probably US Standard missiles too for area defence. I guess for them already using that missile and it being incorporated into their systems it makes sense. Probably equally makes sense to have Camm ER however on ours applying the same logic.
That would be the ESSM. The Canadians are using ESSM as the PDMS and CAMM as the CIWS.
That’s correct, Canada are part of the ESSM user and development group.
The existing CAMM can probably do 60km the ER will be much further then the public figures given…
I don’t think so,.missile is 99kg, this missiles sizes in 80’s had 10-15km range and were in air to air not even land to air.
It is based on ASRAAM which has a reported range of 60km. It has the same motor, rocket and warhead.
The main difference is that AAMMs has a radar rather then a IR seaker.
ASRAAM is 88kg so not much in it. So I would expect it would go at least 50km…
That makes it a medium to short range air defence missile with point defence capabilities. It is certainly NOT a 25km point defence misole.
With CAMM-ER you don’t need a separate point defence system. As it has precisely the same minimum range envelope as SeaCeptor of <1km. In fact having CAMM-ER would be even better, as the additional length booster should increase the missile’s terminal velocity. Therefore, there would be no need to mix CAMM-ER with SeaCeptor.
CAMM-ER has about the same performance as ESSM. The major benefit to CAMM-ER is that it can do point defence, whereas ESSM cannot.
Sea Ceptor is not a point defence missile it is an area defence missile. It has a medium reange capabilit. The details are classified but some reports suggest 36 miles.
So the frigates are able to defend themselves and add to fleet defence.
However I agree we should get the ER variant both for the navy and our land systems.
Yes, SeaCeptor is a local area defence missile, but it does have point defence capability. This was a key requirement when they were looking at replacing SeaWolf.
Yes it does both.
You don’t get 36 miles from a Mach 3 99kg missile.
So explain why the CAMM-ER even exists…
It is simple the ER gives you extra range over the standard one. What that extra range is is not known. The open source ranges are not the real range of the missile. The ER may be a cheap alternative to ASTER 30 rather then ASTER 15.
Depends. I understand 25km is the effective range against subsonic sea skimming missile. This means, for slower target, it can reach the target will less speed/kinetic power.
Is/could CAMM-ER (be) a possible replacement candidate for the Aster-15? I know the Aster-15 is a little faster, but CAMM-ER (apparently) has more range and the fact that it can be quad packed(?) is quite compelling.
Original CAMM shares its motor, fuse and warhead, wing and possible datalink (?) with ASRAAM blk.2. As ASRAAM is built in number, as well as CAMM itself, it contributed to make it cheaper. But, if CAMM-ER is also to be built in number, adopting it will be one choice.
It could be a mix of CAMM (patrly as missile-CIWS) and CAMM-ER (Local Area Air Defense, also replacing Aster15 on T45?), both launched from the Mushroom launcher in RN?
CAMM-ER is equivalent in weight/length to AMRAAM. But, RAF has Meteor AAM, so will not adopt CAMM-ER…
The reason we went with CAAM over CAAM-ER was the carry over from ASRAAM. CAAM ER I believe uses all of the same internals as CAAM just a larger fuel tank and missile body. I’d say the UK has a large work share in both missiles so it shouldn’t really matter to the government which one we select in terms of supporting local industry.
“…the ER variant is longer (4.2 meters) to incorporate an extended booster/sustainer rocket motor developed specifically for the MBDA missile by Italian company’s Avio, in a larger calibre (190 mm) propulsion section. Consequently, the overall weight of the missile has increased from 99 kg to 160 kg. The interceptor’s aerodynamics have also been improved, adding strakes to the missile central body which design has been subsequently refined, alongside small fins to the forward section and a redesigned and more performing front seeker radome…”
From edrmagazine site.
The strakes etc. are necessary given the length of the missile vs. its steering fins, much like Mica & IRIS-T etc.
CAMM has a similar range to Aster 15, but you still want the Aster 15 on the Type 45 for the hardest targets. CAMM-ER would fit between Aster 15 & 30
That’s debatable considering you could fit four Sea Ceptors into the same silo as one Astor15….
To me it’s a no trainer, increase the Astor 30 load out and quad pack Sea Ceptor into the rest …. You could easily have an extremely potent 90+ missile load out in a T45.
That’s enough to make any enemy think twice.
It is an issure if your 4 missiles cannot hit that incommung manouvering hypersonic sea skimmer. I would ratger trust ASTER 15 with my life than a less capable missile. The T45 shoukd be fitted with is extra VLS + 16 I think and these should be quad packed with Sea Ceptor.
Yes, absolutely, but there’ll be some targets that CAMM just can’t kill, so you need Aster for them – a mix is the best option.
I believe there’s quite a big difference in max speeds too. Aster up to Mach 4.5 and CAMM Mach 3+. I think the newer ESSM can also go over Mach 4 and has a decent range, maybe greater than CAMM-ER? Not sure if this can be quad packed either as it has a wider body than CAMM but happy to be corrected on that. As has beene suggested it wouldn’t hurt to have addit additional medium range SAM on our ships and for especially UK land, sea/air ports, strategic facilities. If the growing Russian sub is becoming an even greater… Read more »
Yes unlike most Western countries we do not have national organic air defence SAMS. All we have is a limited number of Sky Sabre (if it is even operational yet). Given Russia is well stocked with fast land attack missiles we are currently a sitting duck. The French have land based ASTER 30 block 1. The Italians will get CAMMs ER. Many countries have Us systems… The last national SAM we had was Bloodhound 2! It is about time we got a national air defence system not a few mobile units their to protect the army. I would get ASTER… Read more »
Aster 15 does not reach past Mach 3.5, it is Aster 30 that reaches Mach 4.5.
CAMM-ER, at its extremities, is no wider than the standard CAMM because it is the rear control fins that are the widest point when folded.
In 2012 the MoD and MBDA (UK) committed £ 483 million to the developementof the CAMM/Ceptor system. So how and why did its continued developement apparently get given away to the Italians?
CAMM-ER is a joint Anglo-Italian project.
It is the Italians that wanted a longer than short range missile to replace their Aspides, so they asked UK if they could develop the extended range version of CAMM cutting development costs. So now MBDA Italy and MBDA UK have design authority over CAMM-ER. For example the rocket is Italian because it was necessary a new one. UK benefits because they now have a compatible longer range version if they which so developed by Italians
IT’s about time the UK get sorted with a Air defence system 🚀
I may venture and say that perhaps CAMM/Sea Ceptor/Land Ceptor in its current guise is getting a bit of unfair criticism; it has a max range of at least 25-30 km and is likely more because MBDA aren’t in the habit of releasing accurate figures. It is not just a point defence system, it is a local area defence system. Phalanx or Goal Keeper (true CIWS) would be very hard pressed to shoot down a missile incoming against a friendly ship, unless it happened to fly right past it, but Sea Ceptor can do that without a problem. Same with… Read more »
Agree….
Looks very similar to the ESSM.
Indeed, same class.
I suspect it is more agile. ESSM is a big missole.
What we need to do is make sure we dont skimp on types and numbers missiles on new boats…..madness to cut capability and hulls
Camm with its soft launch and 99kg weight seems to do the turn over in flight to hit close in targets, hence Canada has chosen it for CIWS alongside ESSM . I wonder what the minimum and max ranges are for the ER? Italy also puts a more potent gun mix of 76mm rapid fire so maybe has slightly different concepts. Adding a longer range missile to sky sabre or UK frigates would also require any up-grade in radar and command systems. You need to see further in far more clarity which equates to an upgrade in performance otherwise you… Read more »
It might be the case that the ER might accept 3rd party targeting data so the radar horizon might not be such an issue. Also ER and Sea Ceptor use their own radars to localise their target. So the radar might not need to be upgraded. Assuming the Type 997 and the T31 radar cannot do the jub.
I think that might depend on the vessel. If a atyoe 31 is taking 3rd party data from a type 45 , you might wonder why it would need the longer range missile, the Type 45 should deal with the threats, and we only have 6. I understand the issue is that when you have a “dome” of coverage the complex job then gets far harder. You have a managed battle space with mach 3 missile firing into large areas of airspace, they will coast a long way, interfere with friendly ops and risk blue on blue incidents. Work out… Read more »
For land defence of the UK you wold need ASTER 30 1NT or 2 to target tricky targets. But extra area defence agains cruise missiles and aircraft could be provided by Sky Sabre. On the battle space management issue, I suspect the RN’s recent interest in AI is exactly to address the kind of issues you describe. I suspect the ships would all have a fussed data picture of the battle-space made up of all the sensors in the fleet. The SAMs would be network enables taking their their targeting from the most appropriate platform – AEW, Ships etc. Engagements… Read more »