Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

WatcherZero said:
In the original CGI the mid body fins have hinges along their base while the tail fins have hinges half way along their width (which presumably then means an even folded diameter across the length of the missile to fit the cannister), but they dont have hinges in the physical mockup.

Edit: Noticed in the new video the tail fins now have continuous hinges at their base rather than smaller ones half way across like they did in the earlier renders and on the CAMM-ER, while on the CAMM-ER the body fins didnt fold but they now do on the CAMM-MR.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no matter how the mid-body fins fold, the image in post #219 does not work. The launch tube barely fits around the folded tail fins where the body diameter is reduced. There is simply no room for folding the main fins around the fuselage, which already takes up the full diameter of the tube as shown.
 
zen said:
So people are saying it doesn't fit based on rough guestimates. Not actual dimensions.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at the actual (CGI) photo and saying that the fins don't fit inside the tube as illustrated. I suspect the illustration is wrong, not that the missile can't fit in a dual-pack. Assuming the dual-pack, that does suggest that the numbers some other folks are estimating are not quite correct and it's probably a bit skinnier than that. Based on the dual-pack Standard patent I linked to earlier, I don't think CAMM-MR can be much bigger than about 13 inches (330 mm) to leave room for the folded main fins inside the launch tube.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Pythagoras Theorem. A 640mm square is 905mm across the diagonal.

Or more accurately, the max. diameter is [2-sqrt(2)] x width of square = 0.586 x width, which gives 375mm.

The 380mm is ruler-to-screen measured from a picture of two mock-ups, so might not be massively accurate, even if the mock-ups themselves are scaled perfectly, since I'm squinting at mm markings. So if the width of the CAMM-ER was actually 5.25mm and not 5mm and the CAMM-MR 9.75mm and not 10mm, then that would make width 353mm not 380mm etc.

View attachment 707347
Click to expand...
That was the math my brain wasn't capable of pulling out in a few minutes.
 
TomS said:
There will be multiple prox fuzes (probably 4) spaced around the circumference for 360-degree coverage.

The other things your arrows are pointed at look like hazard or handling marks painted on the missile.
Click to expand...
How does the missile pitch over after launch - aerodynamic or a thruster?
 
Mark Nankivil said:
How does the missile pitch over after launch - aerodynamic or a thruster?
Click to expand...

In CAMM and ER, there are thrusters right near the tail that turn the missile onto target before the main rocket fires. A longer-range missile like MR might be fine just getting up to speed and then steering aerodynamically, since the most efficient trajectory will be an up-and-over route anyway.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
How does the missile pitch over after launch - aerodynamic or a thruster?
Click to expand...
As @TomS says CAMM and CAMM-ER use a 'tip over' mechanism to orientate the missile in the correct direction after cold launch. See below for an early test of the unit. You can see that the timing on production missiles has changed though...now its cold launch out of the canister, attitude change with thrust vectoring unit...then main engine ignition.

View: https://youtu.be/7oRmGFVLJ08?si=GH_uCTDBiRRf13PN&t=34


You can see it on the picture in post 212 at the bottom of each missile in the cutaway canister (not including CAMM-MR), below the fold out rear fins.

We don't know if CAMM-MR will come with it. I suspect it will as they have stated that they want to continue with the advantages that come with cold launch. Orientating the missile in the correct direction saves fuel and reduces minimum engagement range. It may also be why CAMM-MR looks shorter than we're expecting, the model we're all comparing is not the same as the CAMM and CAMM-ER that are in their cutaway canister, the CAMM-MR instead stands alone. I suspect they did not have a canister cutaway model available to bring to the show....so it might in reality be a little longer....there is also the possiblilty that the CAMM-MR will have a tip over unit that includes a first stage booster, they have also mentioned that this is being examined to get that additional range, dual pulse motors have also been mentioned...I don't think we're seeing the full missile unit....
 
Last edited:
I wonder how sustainable it is to use AIM-132 on drones when so many cheaper means are available. They need a modicum of restraint to use them with prudence.
 
TomS said:
It's literally in the tweet...
Click to expand...

D'Oh (Homer Simpson moment), I wasn't paying attention. But while an ASRAAM is a capable missile it's wasted on a Shaheed drone (The APKWS is a better choice and then there's that German mobile anti-aircraft gun battery).
 
NMaude said:
D'Oh (Homer Simpson moment), I wasn't paying attention. But while an ASRAAM is a capable missile it's wasted on a Shaheed drone (The APKWS is a better choice and then there's that German mobile anti-aircraft gun battery).
Click to expand...

If they had the perfect ability to pick and choose, sure. But they don't, and presumably had to go with whatever missile had the opportunity. In a perfect world, they would also chose not to double-tap on a successful kill (that second round coming in from screen right just killed a debris cloud), but sometimes you don't have the luxury of shoot-look-shoot.
 
TomS said:
If they had the perfect ability to pick and choose, sure. But they don't, and presumably had to go with whatever missile had the opportunity. In a perfect world, they would also chose not to double-tap on a successful kill (that second round coming in from screen right just killed a debris cloud), but sometimes you don't have the luxury of shoot-look-shoot.
Click to expand...
Shoot-look-shoot is based on time to impact and missile speed. I can't see any ground system having good detection ranges to allow long enough time to impact to allow shoot-look-shoot.
 
NMaude said:
But while an ASRAAM is a capable missile it's wasted on a Shaheed drone
Click to expand...

I suspect the person who would have been on the receiving end of that Shaheed might have a different outlook.

That is unfortunately the nature of modern warfare. If a cheap suicide drone is coming your way, and an expensive missile is all you have in the area (though it seems in this case there was a second launcher), then you've got to use the expensive missile or whatever the drone blows up may be even more expensive (not to mention the human cost).
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Depends on the value of what the Shaheed is pointed at.
Click to expand...

A good point. But what Ukraine really needs now in regards to short-range SAMs are truckloads of the APKWS to shoot down drones like the Shaheed.

Scott Kenny said:
Also if the Shaheed is capable of doing any recon.
Click to expand...

As far as I know there are no reconnaissance variants, the Shaheed is basically a budget cruise-missile designed for mass attacks against soft-targets (Civilian infrastructure is definitely a soft target).
 
NMaude said:
A good point. But what Ukraine really needs now in regards to short-range SAMs are truckloads of the APKWS to shoot down drones like the Shaheed.
Click to expand...
Agreed there about APKWS being the cheapest option.

NMaude said:
As far as I know there are no reconnaissance variants, the Shaheed is basically a budget cruise-missile designed for mass attacks against soft-targets (Civilian infrastructure is definitely a soft target).
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure if there was a datalink going back to the controller with the ability to spot for artillery or whatever.
 
Now Take a mk.57 and trow out the hot gas systems. Then we can quadpack CAMM MR into it. Maybe we can even cut of some length of the Cell to save space.
 
But here you don't need so thick walls as we would use cold Launch. With that it should fit but to be 100% sure we have to weight for the official size of the missile. But it could be tight fit
 
kqcke for you said:
But here you don't need so thick walls as we would use cold Launch. With that it should fit but to be 100% sure we have to weight for the official size of the missile. But it could be tight fit
Click to expand...
That's still only 1" walls or less depending on missile clearance to the cell, probably only 1/2" or even 1/4" thick walls physically. I don't think you could thin the walls down much even if you went to a cold launch.
 
Yes 1 Inch is enough. We get some ~400mm space for it now in the diagonal. More than the MK.41 has and that should be enough for it based on the fact that they only have ~380mm in the MK.41.
 
Now wait. I think i miscalculated it.
For it to be quadpacked it would need to be even larger around 32 Inch. But well Just scale mk.57 to MK.41 size down and trow out the exhaust gas. That would make it a good VLS for CAMM-MR and Safe weight and space.
 
Last edited:
When you start chopping and changing the launcher it stops being a universal cannister adapter and becomes a bespoke launch rail.
 
WatcherZero said:
When you start chopping and changing the launcher it stops being a universal cannister adapter and becomes a bespoke launch rail.
Click to expand...
Well yes your then Limited to cold Launch only. And for that you have ExLS stuff and the CAMM Family. It would be space and weight optimization for it. Not a Bad traid off i would say. Tought If one can have the excess weight and space one doesnt need to do it.
 
Earlier today MBDA published some news....then later withdrew and said it was a mistake.....sounds like they pushed the publish button a little too soon....contract signed with Swedish FMV...suspect they need to announce to Parliament first...

Looks like CAMM for Sweden....probably on the Visby Class...

EDIT: Think the below article at Navy Recognition has been pulled, I suspect at MBDA's request...

www.navyrecognition.com

Sweden Navy to equip Visby class corvettes with CAMM missiles

According to information published by MBDA on November 15, 2023, the firm has recently secured a contract with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration
www.navyrecognition.com www.navyrecognition.com
 
Last edited:
Here's the state of play for CAMM and ASRAAM Customers if the Swedish sale goes through (realistically its one of the few options for the Visby Class)...

CAMM/CAMM-ER customers to date:

British Army
Royal Navy
Royal New Zealand Navy
Chilean Navy
Brazilian Navy
Italian Navy
Italian Air Force
Italian Army
Royal Canadian Navy
Pakistan Navy
Polish Army
Polish Navy
Royal Saudi Navy
Swedish Navy

The British Army'should' be getting CAMM-ER in the near future, Cmdr 7AD has said as much, and 'medium ranged' AD is in the pipeline. You'd also have to think that CAMM-MR is also on the cards from 2030 for the UK and Poland at least. What that means for the RN is anyones guess, the Army and Navy share a common stockpile of missiles...
Still the potential of the Brazilian Marines as well and I suspect other sales are in the works...particularly in the Gulf.

ASRAAM customers to date:

Royal Air Force (Block 6 will completely replace legacy Asraam from 2022 onwards)
Royal Australian Air Force (Questions remain about Asraam's future in RAAF service)
Indian Air Force (Unclear if Block 6 is part of the deal)
Qatar Emiri Air Force (Likely Asraam Block 6 only when delivered).
Royal Air Force of Oman (Likely Asraam Block 6 only when delivered).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom