Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

P

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
4 June 2006
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
1,259
European missile manufacturer MBDA is starting to flesh out its plans for a common family of anti-air weapons, being supported by research funding from the UK Defense Ministry.

The family, known as the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM), is aimed at meeting tri-service requirements from around 2018. In the land environment CAMM is intended to provide a successor to the Rapier point-defense missile system, while in the naval context it will provide a follow-on to the Sea Wolf missile.

For air platforms CAMM would effectively provide an upgrade for the Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile. The presently envisaged CAMM configuration uses an ASRAAM airframe.

The British Defense Ministry is funding study and technology demonstrator work in support of the CAMM concept.
 
The definitive Common Anti-Air Modular Missile may not be ASRAAM based. According to Jane’s Missiles & Rockets, between 2002 and 2005, a series of demonstration firings was conducted using ASRAAM-based hardware to prove the planned soft-launch scheme. The missile retained the existing ASRAAM mounting points, and was fitted into a container-launcher of square cross-section.

The demonstrator rounds were about 3 m long, and retained the 166 mm diameter of the ASRAAM. Total weight was about 100 kg, slightly more than the 87 kg of the ASRAAM. The container-launcher was about 3.25 m long and weighed about 45 kg.

At the DSEI exhibition in London during September, MBDA showed a control section incorporating a series of four twin-nozzle thrusters mounted just aft of the fins fired to steer the round through a post-launch turnover manoeuvre.

Carry trials of a fully-active RF seeker are due to begin in 2008, the magazine reported.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
 
I predicted the development of this years ago, only strengthened when I saw the MBDA trial MICA-VLS. It seemed so damned obvious and clearly I was not alone on that one, cue smug mode!

Interesting to hear its a different missile body, if the same diameter.

RF seeker would seem likely to be of an existing type, perhaps the same as used in MICA and Meteor?
 
RP1 said:
Link to a paper on the Soft Vertical Launch system proposed for CAMM:
Click to expand...

You forgot the TM after Soft Vertical Launch (TM)...... ;D
 
Has the development of CAMM required any new developments elsewhere, could it have been developed sooner?
 
Hmmm. Given the wide range of vessels, big and small, that the system is meant to be deployed on, perhaps something more like the old Hawker Siddeley Dynamics SHIELD would be more effective, both cost and technology wise? Just my opinion.
 
It might be possible to produce a cheaper missile, but there's a pretty linear relationship between cost and capability here. You don't want to refit your warships with 1970s technology.
 
So this thing is what, a stretched ASRAAM with VLS capability? Sounds logical to have a longer body for a bigger motor and the flip-over jets.

And if it's capable of bolting onto the standard aircraft launch rails, that offers increased air-launch range or energy-manoeuvre capability, and maybe even the ability to flip 180 degrees and attack a target astern... hmm...
 
harrier said:
In many ways it's analogous to the Tor SA-15/SA-N-9 missile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system - cold VL, local area defence (more than just point defence), but 30 years later!
Click to expand...

A fair bit cleverer with onboard active radar guidance and variable data link inputs. General method is for search radar to locate target, missile launches and heads towards target, target position updates are sent to missile via data link until it gets within range to switch on the onboard radar and go for active terminal homing. Clever bit is that the search radar isn't holding track of either missile or target but simply giving position updates whilst carrying on scouring the sky.
 
Interesting. It suggests that it'd be fairly easy to create a longer-range version by adding a booster.
 
The latest information on the Type 26 is that they will have twenty four launchers in front of the bridge and ahead of the helo hanger. Will this be twenty four individual missiles or are they twenty four quad packs as show on the Venerator video?

Regards
 
IIRC, the last Type 26 model we saw had 24 missiles each in those two locations, for a total of 48 CAMM. That's a pretty generous loadout -- four times thast would be extremely unlikely.
 
The CAMM launchers on the current T26 design are all single tube launchers- not larger VLS cells for which there is only space (likely reserved rather than fitted) for 16. An odd feature, in my opinion, is not making the design slightly larger and rearranging things to accommodate an additional 16 VLS cells instead of the 48 CAMM specific launch tubes.
 
JFC Fuller said:
The CAMM launchers on the current T26 design are all single tube launchers- not larger VLS cells for which there is only space (likely reserved rather than fitted) for 16. An odd feature, in my opinion, is not making the design slightly larger and rearranging things to accommodate an additional 16 VLS cells instead of the 48 CAMM specific launch tubes.
Click to expand...

The ratio of 48 CAMM to 16 MK 41/48/57 VLS is extremely generous. CAMM is a soft launch missile. So its vertical launchers are just tubes holding the missile making them very simple and light. VLS however can support hot launch missiles with extremely powerful boosters (like SM2). So its launchers have massive 180 degree exhaust vents. This is why CAMM is so attractive because the launcher is extremely lightweight by comparison.
 
What is the planned missile load for the modernised T23?

Regards
 
Has anyone heard what the missile load on the T23's will be when refitted? I know that effectively they could be fitted at a ratio of 4 to 1 Sea Wolves, but I somehow can't see the MOD stretching to a 128 missiles per ship? Is the VLS well on the T23's deep enough to take any other weapon?

Regards.
 
Well, that belatedly answers JohnR's question from last year. Looks like a 1:1 replacement of Sea Wolf with Sea Ceptor in the Type 23s.
 
RAM shares IR sensor elements with Stinger IIRC, but CAMM is a ASRAAM modified for use as SAM with active radar seeker. Fire control by platform has huge commonality with PAAMS (~Aster).

------------------
Personal opinion
I think CAMM makes little sense because it's too short-ranged to justify the expense of an active radar seeker.
Even the extended range version is of little good - the biggest improvement over Aster 15 is the more compact VLS.

My hopes are for AMRAAM-ER and for naval purposes the quad-packed ESSM Blk II.
Maybe the latter even gets a AESA antenna as some of the newest Russian and Japanese A2A missiles designs.
 
lastdingo said:
RAM shares IR sensor elements with Stinger IIRC, but CAMM is a ASRAAM modified for use as SAM with active radar seeker. Fire control by platform has huge commonality with PAAMS (~Aster).

------------------
Personal opinion
I think CAMM makes little sense because it's too short-ranged to justify the expense of an active radar seeker.
Even the extended range version is of little good - the biggest improvement over Aster 15 is the more compact VLS.

My hopes are for AMRAAM-ER and for naval purposes the quad-packed ESSM Blk II.
Maybe the latter even gets a AESA antenna as some of the newest Russian and Japanese A2A missiles designs.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a relatively expensive, less capable, TOR. On the other hand, while active radar sounds expensive, are they ALL expensive? Big difference between a bleeding edge AESA seeker (like the one Japan and UK are looking at for Meteor) and active seeker on LM's Miniature Hit-to-Kill.
 
Seeker's SE would involve the target set. One thing to design something that is Low-Cost and targeted towards CRAM and small UAS, while another that has to have the capability to go after fixed and rotary winged aircraft with ECM. The Army has had a few low-cost seeker programs, even looking at phased array seeker options..
 
Something I was wondering about CAMM. Mk41 vls can take a 21 inch diameter missile, or four 10 inch diameter missiles (ESSM); could it take a 3x3 "nonapack" of nine 6.5 inch diameter standard CAMMs? Not the ERs, since they are 7.5 inches with the booster. Assuming soft launch/hot launch can be resolved.
 
apparition13 said:
Something I was wondering about CAMM. Mk41 vls can take a 21 inch diameter missile, or four 10 inch diameter missiles (ESSM); could it take a 3x3 "nonapack" of nine 6.5 inch diameter standard CAMMs? Not the ERs, since they are 7.5 inches with the booster. Assuming soft launch/hot launch can be resolved.
Click to expand...

Well, the launch issue is solved, as seen by ExLS, which hosts four CAMM in a single Mk 41 VLS cell via a Munitions Adaptor. Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.


www.mbda-systems.com

CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher | Press Release | MBDA

MBDA and Lockheed Martin have jointly completed qualification of MBDA’s CAMM from Lockheed Martin’s ExLS 3-Cell Stand Alone Launcher.
www.mbda-systems.com www.mbda-systems.com
 
TomS said:
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.
Click to expand...

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.
Click to expand...

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.
Click to expand...

Wings definitely fold, and there isn't much spare room around the sides of the missile, based on the renderings I see here. I suspect it's just that the original application was a quadpack canister for the Type 23 retrofit, and that same quadpack is a bit undersized to fit a Mk 41 cell.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.
Click to expand...

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.
Click to expand...

Wings definitely fold. Here's a CAMM next to an encapsuled CAMM-ER (you can clearly see where the fins fold line is on the CAMM), second image is a cutaway of a CAMM canister with annotation, again with fold visible (and there's isn't much space in the canister), third image is a CAMM leaving its launch canister which shows the scale off quite well (also demonstates why ExLS or other expensive VL setups aren't necessary for CAMM as you could literally plug it in and prop it up with a wooden frame and it would work..).

Have to wonder if ExLS is even a live product anymore as its been around for 10+ years with zero sales and no full testing and integration campaigns on ships. I believe CAMM is the only payload to have even been trialled. At one point it looked like standalone ExLS would be the default launching 'frame' for CAMM. But the recent pic of the RNZN ANZAC Class with 'Mushroom Farm' has to call that into question. If I was LM I'd see if I could sell ExLS lock, stock and barrel to MBDA for a fee to try and recoup some money,any money.

uLqzosF.jpg


4X9CvUt.jpg


OrTE19K.jpg
 
How difficult would it be to fit CAMM (I refuse to use that stupid name) to the QE aircraft carriers.
 
I rather think CAMM opens up a whole potential raft of possible future iterations.

When taken with the possible options for Tempest, the Complex Weapons modular approach could produce potential savings and scalability. More rapid to ramp up production than the heavy industry approach of conventional artillery.

So options apparently include.
A larger bore missile to carry Brimstone seeker and warhead.
Or an alternative optical seeker (optical here is a vague, not precise term bar) that may be EO/IR or even SAL designated.
These seem to use a GMLRS 178mm diameter rocket as the basis.

We can see a larger bore ASRAAM option for Tempest, presumably to leverage combined IR/ARH seeker. This surely would step into ASTER-15 territory?

In looking at Tempest options a smaller, narrower missile opens up a derivative SAM, perhaps even as a Starstreak successor.
It would certainly assist soldiers in the field, if the MANPAD was one that didn't actually need to be pointed at the target, but just propped up vertically. Leaving any optical systems that might have to be slewed onto target as a much lighter and more manoeuvrable system. Soft/Cold Launch does make this a possible future development.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom