Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

H_K said:
(As for Norway, I still don't know what they were thinking buying expensive ASW frigates with only CAAM currently integrated and no confirmation of CAMM ER or CAMM MR integration).
Click to expand...
My own theory is that BAE gave Norway a very firm nod that they were planning to develop Artisan NG/NGRD, which will give T26 the capacity to use CAMM-MR or Aster effectively. Otherwise I suspect it would have lost the competition as the Norwegian press were quite vocal about its inferior air defences to the other options.
Of course, that depends on CAMM-MR getting developed or Aster getting integrated.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Artisan NG/NGRD, which will give T26 the capacity to use CAMM-MR or Aster effectively. Otherwise I suspect it would have lost the competition as the Norwegian press were quite vocal about its inferior air defences to the other options.
Click to expand...
Or maybe Nansens can work for a while? They're ok aaw combatants.
 
Norway made it's selection as much on the long-term relationship it would have as anything to do with the competing ships.

CAMM wasn't likely forefront in their mind.
ASW likely did figure highly and not being constrained to NH90 or SH60 was probably a factor.

If CAMM did become a factor, it's likely because the UK it literally "just over the North Sea" in a supplier sense and as has been demonstrated. Willing to license production and codevelopment of future variants.
Besides if Norway can get NSAMS integration for CAMM variants. It has options.
 
Last edited:
Technically, they could integrate SM-6 in the Mk-41 quite easily. Same with evolved CAMM options, so long as they are integrated with the Mk-41, possibly via ExLS inserts. How good is Artisan in the anti-air role?
 
Afaict the Artisan is somewhere between Sea Giraffe AMB and EL/M-2248 MF-STAR. It seems to promote a resemblance of stealth detection out to around 100 km. So would RIM-116 technically be a CAMM replacement?
 
Another avenue to examine is a faster missile.
By ramping up speed, one can tread properly into Anti-Tactical-Ballistic-Missile territory.
Less a function of increasing size, so much as greater speed and agility at those speeds. Plus a change of warhead.
Maybe we call that concept something like CAMM-R (rapid).
 
Titus K said:
Is the CAMM-ER ceiling really the same as CAMM at around 10.000m ?
Click to expand...
May potentially be. ASRAAMs (to whom CAMMs belong) are very slender missiles with minimal aerodynamic surfaces.

Likely Hmax is not a hard cap, but rather soft limitation through inability to achieve designed performance criteria (against target pulling hard enough with given probability of intercept) in stratosphere.
Volkodav said:
Technically, they could integrate SM-6 in the Mk-41 quite easily. Same with evolved CAMM options, so long as they are integrated with the Mk-41, possibly via ExLS inserts. How good is Artisan in the anti-air role?
Click to expand...
It's effectively a Corvette/FAC level set. Modern, sure, but you really can fit it on a warship 10 times smaller without issues.
 
kqcke for you said:
You forgot the excess before the 100km
Click to expand...
I believe 20km maximum altitude was also mentioned for CAMM-MR. So, it's now a 120km+ range, 20km+ altitude AAW missile capable of SRBMD. Essentially, a cheaper, more compact Aster-30 Block 0.
 
Last edited:
Are the Visby corvettes getting CAMM or CAMM-ER like the Luleå frigates ?
 
I vaguely reccal it's CAMM, and considering the constraints on the Visby design, that makes sense.

But technologically, systematically and in almost every way CAMM-ER is just a longer ranged CAMM.
 
zen said:
But technologically, systematically and in almost every way CAMM-ER is just a longer ranged CAMM.
Click to expand...
Except I don’t believe it fits in standalone EXLS launchers or the standard mushroom launchers due to its longer length?

So functionally CAMM ER installation appears to be much harder currently, with quad packing limited to MK41 VLS. The Italians appear to have adopted a new type of mushroom launcher for their Albatros NG exports to Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the visby are getting standard CAMM, found this on a swedish forum :
Yes, the Visby will receive the ExLS.
But no, the CAMM-ER will not enter it, because this missile is about a metre longer. It therefore requires the extended version of the ExLS, which did not yet exist as a ready-to-use product and was therefore discarded.
Click to expand...

olek_z17 said:
Could be, though I accounted for that, and my result was that you could pack as many as 48 CAMMs into the space just slightly bigger than that occupied by the 8 Sylver A50 cells (just the cells and what's between them, I accounted for the module's external structure as well) while using structural supports that are dimensionally similar to those used for the Mk41 quadpack. I've tried to match these sketches below as well as I could to the dimensions of the Sylver module, the Mk41 cell and the CAMM launch canister, and 24 is definitely not the maximum possible number here.
Click to expand...
I missed your drawings, i reckon with 24 missiles per launcher it will probably be 6x4 ?
 
H_K said:
Except I don’t believe it fits in standalone EXLS launchers or the standard mushroom launchers due to its longer length?

So functionally CAMM ER installation appears to be much harder currently, with quad packing limited to MK41 VLS. The Italians appear to have adopted a new type of mushroom launcher for their Albatros NG exports to Pakistan.
Click to expand...
Yes, though the main difference is probably that one extra meter of space below deck:
GB5sPIuW4AEqcYB.jpg
Also, this has to be the cheapest VLS system that one can conceive. I'm not a fan of how space-inefficient these are, but the price probably justifies everything here.
As for the CAMM-ER and Standalone ExLS, these indeed don't fit, the launcher is just long enough to fit CAMM launch containers and nothing more. I've seen some people claim that Babcock's offer included CAMM-ER integration with the ExLS, so essentially stretching the launchers by one meter, but no official confirmation of that.

Titus K said:
I missed your drawings, i reckon with 24 missiles per launcher it will probably be 6x4 ?
Click to expand...
Probably, at least if they're gonna go with individual launch containers. Which is the easiest way to do it I think, and the most sensible.
 
zen said:
I vaguely reccal it's CAMM, and considering the constraints on the Visby design, that makes sense.

But technologically, systematically and in almost every way CAMM-ER is just a longer ranged CAMM.
Click to expand...

Yes its CAMM going in the Visby. That might also mean the Lulea Class have a few CAMM onboard alongside CAMM-ER and Aster as a real close in missile (CAMM-ER min engagement range is 1km, Aster 30 1.5km...CAMM is 200m)

H_K said:
Except I don’t believe it fits in standalone EXLS launchers or the standard mushroom launchers due to its longer length?
Click to expand...

Doesn't fit in ExLS (Standalone or liner) until LM decide to extend its length. That shouldn't represent any great engineering effort though...its just some additional steel.

As for the GWS.35 installation you can fit either CAMM or CAMM-ER inside. There is no hard length restriction to the launcher outside of the space in the hull. The Pakistani Navy is getting CAMM-ER in the GWS.35 installed on their ships. What we don't know at present is if there enough space below the launcher on T26 and T31 (first 2 ships as built) to have CAMM-ER slotted in. Clearly in the T45 installation there is enough room where the GWS.35 is located as that space was previously reserved for full Strike Length Mk.41.
 
timmymagic said:
As for the GWS.35 installation you can fit either CAMM or CAMM-ER inside. There is no hard length restriction to the launcher outside of the space in the hull. The Pakistani Navy is getting CAMM-ER in the GWS.35 installed on their ships.
Click to expand...
Is CAMM-ER using GWS.35 though? Looking at the Pakistani ships, their mushrooms are shaped differently from the standard CAMM launchers, which makes me believe it's a new launcher (or GWS-35 derivative) for CAMM-ER.

All in all it's not completely clear whether this launcher is an MBDA Italy or UK product, and whether it is being sold as a flexible launcher for both missiles or (currently?) only by MBDA IT for its CAMM-ER clients...
 
timmymagic said:
Yes its CAMM going in the Visby. That might also mean the Lulea Class have a few CAMM onboard alongside CAMM-ER and Aster as a real close in missile (CAMM-ER min engagement range is 1km, Aster 30 1.5km...CAMM is 200m)
Click to expand...
1.5-1.7 is Aster-15 though. Aster-30 ~twice that number.
 
H_K said:
Is CAMM-ER using GWS.35 though? Looking at the Pakistani ships, their mushrooms are shaped differently from the standard CAMM launchers, which makes me believe it's a new launcher (or GWS-35 derivative) for CAMM-ER.
Click to expand...
Are there any photos or renders of how the mushroom farm modules (I have no idea what the official name of that VLS is, I've seen GWS.35 mentioned sometimes, but not always, and almost never in relation to the 6 cell modules) look on the inside? Like the one I posted here for the Albatross NG system VLS. Because I'd expect these modules to look more less the same, just a meter shorter, but I'm not sure as I've never seen them.

timmymagic said:
Doesn't fit in ExLS (Standalone or liner) until LM decide to extend its length. That shouldn't represent any great engineering effort though...its just some additional steel.
Click to expand...
It will fit into the Host ExLS though, as the CAMM-ER will be integrated with it for the Wicher-class frigates.
 
olek_z17 said:
Are there any photos or renders of how the mushroom farm modules look on the inside?
Click to expand...
Not sure about the internals, but a recap of the various external arrangements might be helpful.

1) Original CAMM mushroom farm on T23 and NZ Anzacs (widely spaced)
Type 23:
FsqbtoqWwAQSqJn.jpg

NZ Anzac upgrade:
Z4722007307696_0C407.jpg


2) New compact 6-cell CAMM mushroom launcher on T45, Tamandare class etc
Mock-up:
1779831477012.png
Type 45:
Type-45-Sea-Ceptor.jpg

HMS-Defender-Sea-Ceptor-Silo.webp

Tamandare:
tamandar%C3%A9-the-first-of-brazils-tamandar%C3%A9-class-frigates-was-v0-kw8tllvrprxg1.jpeg


4) CAMM-ER compact 6-cell CAMM mushroom launcher on Pakistani Babur class (different dome)
GPn1C8QWsAAEEvT.jpg
 
H_K said:
a recap of the various external arrangements might be helpful.
Click to expand...
I've seen all these, what I wonder is the internal structure, specifically whether the canisters are loaded into some kind of a tube like in the Sea Wolf retrofit or are they just held by the end part of the launch canisters like in that Albatross NG launcher render that I posted above.
 
H_K said:
Doesn't say whether this includes navalisation though so could be just land-based CAMM-MR. More info needed...
Click to expand...
Isn't the MR meant to be navalized from the very beginning, like the basic CAMM? I'm pretty sure the main customer from the British side will be the Royal Navy.
 
olek_z17 said:
Isn't the MR meant to be navalized from the very beginning, like the basic CAMM? I'm pretty sure the main customer from the British side will be the Royal Navy
Click to expand...
Until the DIP is published and funding secured CAMM MR is just a paper product... big plans and lots of hope but nothing committed.
 
olek_z17 said:
I've seen all these, what I wonder is the internal structure, specifically whether the canisters are loaded into some kind of a tube like in the Sea Wolf retrofit or are they just held by the end part of the launch canisters like in that Albatross NG launcher render that I posted above.
Click to expand...

This from someone in the RN....

"The box that CAMM comes in is the launcher. It is exactly the same box as the Army has for Sky Sabre and they bolt to the back of a truck. It’s even green in colour as its a common store of missiles.
It is secured below deck onto a rail attached to the deck with a simple clamp. The top part that is where the missile comes out is also secured with a simple clamp. The “mushroom” is the weather proof top for everyday sailing around. Prior to action it’s removed.

If you want you could spend north of 15m ( 20m with fitting and integration) USD for a 8 M deep 8 cell MK 41 launcher designed for hot launch with efflux management and drench system to fit a 2.5m long cold launch missile in. Or… Don’t spend it and use the cash elsewhere.
Exls would be a bit cheaper but again you are putting a launcher in a launcher with a flip top door and deluge system because… You can…"
 
timmymagic said:
If you want you could spend north of 15m ( 20m with fitting and integration) USD for a 8 M deep 8 cell MK 41 launcher designed for hot launch with efflux management and drench system to fit a 2.5m long cold launch missile in. Or… Don’t spend it and use the cash elsewhere.
Exls would be a bit cheaper but again you are putting a launcher in a launcher with a flip top door and deluge system because… You can…can
Click to expand...
I dont think ExLS has a deluge system or eflux management, its built specifically for CAMM. Advantage of ExLS is compactness and no manually removed weather caps, and lighter than the Mk-41 with inserts.
 
DJK said:
I dont think ExLS has a deluge system or eflux management, its built specifically for CAMM. Advantage of ExLS is compactness and no manually removed weather caps, and lighter than the Mk-41 with inserts.
Click to expand...

Not just for CAMM. But it does seem to be true that there is no built-in exhaust management in 3-cell ExLS. Some of the Host inserts, however, would have their own exhaust management. For instance, you can see a separate duct here on the notional RAM Block 2 ExLS insert.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260528-102916.png
    Screenshot_20260528-102916.png
    617 KB · Views: 49
TomS said:
Not just for CAMM. But it does seem to be true that there is no built-in exhaust management in 3-cell ExLS. Some of the Host inserts, however, would have their own exhaust management. For instance, you can see a separate duct here on the notional RAM Block 2 ExLS insert.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the minimum engagement is, compared to 200m for baseline CAMM.

BTW, I noticed CAMM-ER is an inch wider and has twice the range but same 10km ceiling, is that realistic?
 
DJK said:
I dont think ExLS has a deluge system or eflux management, its built specifically for CAMM. Advantage of ExLS is compactness and no manually removed weather caps, and lighter than the Mk-41 with inserts.
Click to expand...

He was specifically talking around Mk.41 initially, but as TomS points out there were a number of payloads originally proposed for ExLS that were hot launch, including RAM Blk II, JAGM and Nulka
 
timmymagic said:
He was specifically talking around Mk.41 initially, but as TomS points out there were a number of payloads originally proposed for ExLS that were hot launch, including RAM Blk II, JAGM and Nulka
Click to expand...

Nulka at least has the advantage of having a very low launch impulse, since you actually don't want it to go very far or fast, so it can do its walk-off decoy thing.

The ExLS insert for JAGM is interesting. JAGM is pretty energetic off the rail and the JAGM Quad Launcher has a fairly beefy plenum. The ExLS version has no obvious plenum, but it shows one pop-up lid with what looks like a round tube under it. I wonder if the insert might actually just hold three missiles and an efflux plenum, rather than four missiles.
 

Attachments

  • images (2).jpeg
    images (2).jpeg
    9.2 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
DJK said:
BTW, I noticed CAMM-ER is an inch wider and has twice the range but same 10km ceiling, is that realistic?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's possible. Not sure if that's the case here, but atmosphere density also plays a role in missile's engagement ceiling, specifically for missiles with conventional control surfaces. To put it simply, if the air is too thin, the missile just won't react to control inputs. And CAMM's control surfaces aren't that big, so that might be a reason for the same stated ceiling.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom