Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate

zen said:
So it's not RAM equivalent.
That would have been SeaStreak, which never got funded.
Click to expand...
Because original RAM had insufficient max range. Also SeaStreak was probably not designed for the whole cUAS problem where the range might have been ok.
zen said:
You don't need ExLS to mount CAMM on a ship, ExLS gives you other load out options for systems.....sort of. But CAMM cells don't need it.
Click to expand...
And mushroom cells waste deck space and colume below deck. And likely have fewer options for the next generation of cold-launch missiles. But is there somewhere amidships that could fit some CAMM launchers? Not as deep as the whole Mk-41 setup.
Scott Kenny said:
I don't think they even have Meteor integrated yet, FFS.
Click to expand...
Correct. "They" being Lockheed Martin in the US. Just in case any other country was thinking about taking Trump's offer to join the F-47 programme.
timmymagic said:
Incredibly CAMM has a much shorter minimum engagement range than RAM as well....200m vs 800m
Click to expand...
Which is my point, and is the point of VSHORAD. A bit more maximum range, but that matches what you would want if you had a 57mm or 76mm or even just a 35mm, as an air defence/CIWS layer inside the 25km CAMM range. If you had a 57mm gun and RAM (with similar max range) against a superaonic incoming, you might have to decide what to fire first and waste more gun ammunition until you know if the RAM will hit. Easier to do that trade off at 25km with CAMM, and save the bigger CAMM-ER/ASTER for the full length tubes.
 
DJK said:
Also SeaStreak was probably not designed for the whole cUAS problem where the range might have been ok.
Click to expand...
SeaStreak was a derivative of StarStreak HVM, good for armoured helicopters to supersonic jets.
DJK said:
And mushroom cells waste deck space and colume below deck.
Click to expand...
Currently the mountings leave a lot of space, density of munitions always increases risk.
DJK said:
And likely have fewer options for the next generation of cold-launch missiles.
Click to expand...
An assumption. But Spear III and LPS 'may' fit the cells.
DJK said:
But is there somewhere amidships that could fit some CAMM launchers?
Click to expand...
Possibly.
 
lucis1225 said:
The difficulty lies in integrating US SAM missiles into CMS, especially the SM-2, which is born to be part of Aegis Weapon System, I don't see any other CMSs which can handle SM-2 that well like the US Aegis, thus, it is likely an Aegis exclusive SAM, at least from performance perspective.
Click to expand...
Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class & German F124 have different CMSs, & SM-2. I've not heard of any problems with them. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt class has had problems with its CMS, but they're not specific to SM-2. They affect interaction with ESSM, which works perfectly happily with various other non-AEGIS, non-US CMSs, e.g. the SAAB 9LV.
 
Last edited:
lucis1225 said:
Of course CAMM don’t need ExLS to be mounted on a warship, but CAMM can only launch from MK41 via the Host-ExLS, CAMM can’t be directly launched from MK41. That’s why I found Royal Navy’s MK41 as the Standard VLS selection really weird as RN has nothing could be fit into MK41 unless they intend to purchase Tomahawk.
Click to expand...
Poland is building ships with Mk41 - & equipping them with CAMM initially, & later CAMM-ER, & planning to equip them with the new CAMM-MR (under development with the UK) when it's ready.

The first one's in the water.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
This is the same UK that has test ranges and integration capabilities, yet hasn't integrated a thing into their F-35s besides laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM. I don't think they even have Meteor integrated yet, FFS.

So good luck prying time and money out of Treasury to do the integrations with Mk41.
Click to expand...
Different class of problem.

Integration with F-35 needs the co-operation of the US F-35 development program, & that's been conspicuously slow at integration of anything not used by the US armed forces.

Integration with Mk41 only needs the cooperation of LM, which seems rather keen on Mk41 being able to fire as many different weapons as possible.
 
Scott Kenny said:
This is the same UK that has test ranges and integration capabilities, yet hasn't integrated a thing into their F-35s besides laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM. I don't think they even have Meteor integrated yet, FFS.
Click to expand...
Considering everyone (except the Israelis) have to do their integration through the US, I'm not sure how UK facilities make any difference. On top of which you need the F-35's computer system set to talk to new weapons, which means waiting for the US changes going into Block IV.

Why yes, I do think the F-35's software architecture is a mess. Why do you ask?
 
Last edited:
Titus K said:
I don't want to quote everyone, but the consensus here seems to be that the Norwegian T26 may very well have a different radar suite and missile loadout than the RN ships ?
Click to expand...
I think that's very far from the consensus here. It may possibly be the opinion of a few people shouting loudly about their own hobbyhorses, but I don't think I've seen anyone with actual insight into the Norwegian programme posting here.
 
zen said:
Currently the mountings leave a lot of space, density of munitions always increases risk.
Click to expand...
So if that was more efficient, there could be space for a proper CIWS there? 48 "SeaCeptor launchers" could be replaced by only 4 ExLS modules, 3 quadpacked cells per module. However, wikipedia lists the CAAM as being quadpacked in 12 VLS cells in addition to Mk-41, so that sounds like its already planned to be ExLS. If you had a spece that wasn't useful for other weapons you could even add more in a PVLS format.
swerve said:
Poland is building ships with Mk41 - & equipping them with CAMM initially, & later CAMM-ER, & planning to equip them with the new CAMM-MR (under development with the UK) when it's ready.
Click to expand...
So the Mk-41 would be expected to take deeper inserts for the ER & MR versions along with other missile types as needed, without compromising the core CAMM numbers. Flexible.

But I noticed the CIWS was still listed as 2 × Phalanx, seems pretty obsolete against modern threats. Not even a goalkeeper, only the 30mm DS30M Mark 2 guns. Wouldn't it be better to go with one of the 35mm CIWS choices? Maybe combined with some of the Bofors 40 guns planned for Type-31. The Phalanx seems like something inherited from an older ship?
 
swerve said:
Poland is building ships with Mk41 - & equipping them with CAMM initially, & later CAMM-ER, & planning to equip them with the new CAMM-MR (under development with the UK) when it's ready.

The first one's in the water.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you just shown the reference which I'd like to share, and I did write in my previous reply that Miecznik select CAMM plus Mk41 just due to the reason that they thought the bloody Kingdom of Saudi Arabic will pay for the integration with Host-ExLS and mature this combination which unfortunately completely derailed due to the MMSC fiasco, now the Polish, they are more likely to be the first to taste this combination. And even so they will have no more than 128 CAMM for Mk41 as air defense at least during the beginning stage which is really not good at all.
 
zen said:
Not cannot, simple not yet.
Integration is just time and money
Click to expand...
I want to say this again, CAMM can't directly fire from Mk41, and the only way is via some kind of measures like the Host-ExLS, and this is so clear to see (the Photo). Just like ESSM can't be directly fire from Mk41 but have to either via Mk25 canister or Mk30 canister. The difference is that Host-EXLS is a lot more complicated than Mk25 and it is not cost wise at all, that's the reason why French Naval Group now is opt to develop the so-called Sylver Cold Lanuch.
1788749146877.png
 
swerve said:
Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class & German F124 have different CMSs, & SM-2. I've not heard of any problems with them. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt class has had problems with its CMS, but they're not specific to SM-2. They affect interaction with ESSM, which works perfectly happily with various other non-AEGIS, non-US CMSs, e.g. the SAAB 9LV.
Click to expand...
You just forgot the F-124 fisaco for blow out the entire vls farm and also fire at the US reaper and both shots fell short, also the Korea and the Dutch complained the SM-2 integration or quality issues all the time, I won't blame RTX and SM-2 for all the issues, but if you want to completely denied the uniqueness of Aegis Weapon System, I don't think it is wise, HD HHI can't even integrated the CIWS 2.0 into their Aegis Destroyers and same thing happened when both Canadian and Germany abandon their intention to integrating Italian Naval Gun into their Aegis Warships. I don't see the logic that the U.S. to declose every technique details to Dutch with respect to SM-2, thus Tacticos CMS with SM-2 will never match an Aegis Weapon System with SM-2 in performance, even with more powerful Radar.
 
timmymagic said:
Personally I think the UK should have stuck with Sylver, but joined in with Italy developing A70-NG as the standard hot launch VL in both navies, suspect the French would have gone with it as well...

FYI - CAMM has never been launched from Host-ExLS mounted in a Mk.41....the trials were long ago on Standalone ExLS on land.

But....The Saudi MMSC (IF it ever gets finished) should prove Mk.41/Host ExLS integration with CAMM at sea.....and the Swedish Visby upgrade will prove Standalone ExLS with CAMM at sea.



Extending the Host ExLS system would be the work of an afternoon in any competent engineering dept. All you'd need to do is add some additional trussing.

And IF LM haven't sketched that out already, and tried to recover some more of their ExLS investment they're insane...
Click to expand...
Thank you for your clarification, I agreed with most of your arguments, for instance, time-wise, there is no way for the Norweigns to select a different configuration of T26, but I do believe that somehow Lockheed Martin had demo the Mk41/Host ExLS with CAMM at land, from my point of view, it is more likely only a dummy CAMM, not a real missile, just like LM did similar demo for SL-LRASM, but it had be shown almost 13 years ago.
1788750375987.png
 
lucis1225 said:
That's likely not true, consider the Aus said the same words, the same configuration to Japanese, and right away ask for ESSM, SM-2, SM-6 (maybe) and NSM on their improved Mogami frigate. And Norweigian fleet will have nearly 0 fleet air defense and BMD capability if they choose to keep the same configuration as RN's City class frigate.
Click to expand...
Those are simple CMS configuration things that will allow the ships to use RAN weapons. Japan will also have some configuration of SAM or medium range missile for the new ship.

Seeing as the UK is supplying everything, there's nothing they've designed or have for the type 26 that they could differentiate on the build line. No fleet air defence or BMD capability is a gap they've chosen.
 
Last edited:
lucis1225 said:
but I do believe that somehow Lockheed Martin had demo the Mk41/Host ExLS with CAMM at land, from my point of view, it is more likely only a dummy CAMM, not a real missile, just like LM did similar demo for SL-LRASM, but it had be shown almost 13 years ago.
Click to expand...

The photo you're showing is of Standalone ExLS. Clearance trials with non-guided CAMM were undertaken c13 years ago in the UK.

There has never been a launch of CAMM to date from a Host ExLS mounted in Mk.41...on land or at sea.

lucis1225 said:
The difference is that Host-EXLS is a lot more complicated than Mk25 and it is not cost wise at all, that's the reason why French Naval Group now is opt to develop the so-called Sylver Cold Lanuch.
Click to expand...

'Sylver Cold launch', if it sees the light of day, will in all likelihood be a direct copy of Standalone ExLS utilising the Sylver armoured lids instead of the Mk.41 lids.
DJK said:
So if that was more efficient, there could be space for a proper CIWS there? 48 "SeaCeptor launchers" could be replaced by only 4 ExLS modules, 3 quadpacked cells per module. However, wikipedia lists the CAAM as being quadpacked in 12 VLS cells in addition to Mk-41, so that sounds like its already planned to be ExLS. If you had a spece that wasn't useful for other weapons you could even add more in a PVLS format.
Click to expand...

The CAMM 4 pack canister was seen, albeit probably in development form, in the Standalone ExLS trials in the UK over 10 years ago (see above).

Standalone ExLS comes in 3 cell modules, each cell can take a 4-pack for CAMM. So 12 missiles total. 4 Standalone ExLS modules = 12 cells thus 48 CAMM. It would occupy less room that 48 or even 24 missiles in the GWS.35 'Mushroom Farm'...it would be more expensive as well.

Quite why the RN has been reticent to adopt Standalone ExLS has never been revealed. You could replace the GWS.35 on T26 for example with 4 x 3 cell Standalone in the amidships and bow and have 96 CAMM rather than 48....
 
timmymagic said:
The photo you're showing is of Standalone ExLS. Clearance trials with non-guided CAMM were undertaken c13 years ago in the UK.

There has never been a launch of CAMM to date from a Host ExLS mounted in Mk.41...on land or at sea.



'Sylver Cold launch', if it sees the light of day, will in all likelihood be a direct copy of Standalone ExLS utilising the Sylver armoured lids instead of the Mk.41 lids.


The CAMM 4 pack canister was seen, albeit probably in development form, in the Standalone ExLS trials in the UK over 10 years ago (see above).

Standalone ExLS comes in 3 cell modules, each cell can take a 4-pack for CAMM. So 12 missiles total. 4 Standalone ExLS modules = 12 cells thus 48 CAMM. It would occupy less room that 48 or even 24 missiles in the GWS.35 'Mushroom Farm'...it would be more expensive as well.

Quite why the RN has been reticent to adopt Standalone ExLS has never been revealed. You could replace the GWS.35 on T26 for example with 4 x 3 cell Standalone in the amidships and bow and have 96 CAMM rather than 48....
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right, I just missed that there is no Efflux door for venting flame, which is the key difference between 3 Pack ExLS and Mk41.
 

Attachments

  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    168.3 KB · Views: 34
timmymagic said:
'Sylver Cold launch', if it sees the light of day, will in all likelihood be a direct copy of Standalone ExLS utilising the Sylver armoured lids instead of the Mk.41 lids.
Click to expand...
Sylver Cold Launch is on order for the Swedish FDIs, & I doubt it's a direct copy with Sylver lids. Standalone ExLS doesn't seem tall enough for CAMM-ER. The Visby-class are getting standard CAMM to go in Standalone ExLS, not CAMM-ER. Why not fit ER if the system will take it? Note that LM says "Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for Sea Ceptor Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM)" - just the base model. Also, it seems unlikely that Sylver lids would be big enough. A Sylver CL 24 missile module takes the same deck space as an 8-cell Sylver A50 module, according to Naval Group.

Maybe it could share elements with ExLS, though, e.g. the MBDA-UK CAMM canister and Launch Management System (LMS).
 
swerve said:
Sylver Cold Launch is on order for the Swedish FDIs, & I doubt it's a direct copy with Sylver lids. Standalone ExLS doesn't seem tall enough for CAMM-ER. The Visby-class are getting standard CAMM to go in Standalone ExLS, not CAMM-ER. Why not fit ER if the system will take it? Note that LM says "Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for Sea Ceptor Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM)" - just the base model. Also, it seems unlikely that Sylver lids would be big enough. A Sylver CL 24 missile module takes the same deck space as an 8-cell Sylver A50 module, according to Naval Group.

Maybe it could share elements with ExLS, though, e.g. the MBDA-UK CAMM canister and Launch Management System (LMS).
Click to expand...
No doubt, ExLS cell is not deep enough for CAMM-ER, as CAMM-ER is roughly 1 meter longer than the standard CAMM, and it is actually pretty close to the length of Aster 15, both are approx. 4.2 meters long. If Naval Group intend to make 'Sylver CL' a multi-missile lanucher as they should, they should leave as much as reserve depth they could for future longer and larger missiles integration.
 
swerve said:
Sylver Cold Launch is on order for the Swedish FDIs, & I doubt it's a direct copy with Sylver lids. Standalone ExLS doesn't seem tall enough for CAMM-ER. The Visby-class are getting standard CAMM to go in Standalone ExLS, not CAMM-ER. Why not fit ER if the system will take it? Note that LM says "Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for Sea Ceptor Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM)" - just the base model. Also, it seems unlikely that Sylver lids would be big enough. A Sylver CL 24 missile module takes the same deck space as an 8-cell Sylver A50 module, according to Naval Group.

Maybe it could share elements with ExLS, though, e.g. the MBDA-UK CAMM canister and Launch Management System (LMS).
Click to expand...

It will clearly need the missile canister and LMS as that IS the VL system for CAMM.

What I mean by 'direct copy' is that it will be a very simple frame/box with an armoured lid. Because that is all that is required. At most they might decide to hold the missile canisters individually rather than in a dedicated quad pack canister as seen with the early CAMM trials with Standalone ExLS.

Like I've said before extending the length of Standalone or Host would not be a hard job whatsoever, just some extra sheeting/trusses required to extend its length.
 
lucis1225 said:
If Naval Group intend to make 'Sylver CL' a multi-missile lanucher as they should, they should leave as much as reserve depth they could for future longer and larger missiles integration.
Click to expand...

There is a hard limit on the weight of a missile in the UK SVL system, believe it was 250kg (although it did say with further work this could be increased). CAMM-ER is 166kg. Might not be a huge amount of margin left to use. LPS and CAMM-MR for example appear to have moved to hot launch (LPS from M270/MFOM and CAMM-MR is unclear but use of Mk.41 for launch might not be just down to size).
 
Gas driven launch systems scale up to Trident in the West and the technology can obviously be engineered to handle far greater weights than the current CAMM cell system.
Russia has shown what 'soft/cold' launch systems can achieve.
 
timmymagic said:
It will clearly need the missile canister and LMS as that IS the VL system for CAMM.

What I mean by 'direct copy' is that it will be a very simple frame/box with an armoured lid. Because that is all that is required. At most they might decide to hold the missile canisters individually rather than in a dedicated quad pack canister as seen with the early CAMM trials with Standalone ExLS.

Like I've said before extending the length of Standalone or Host would not be a hard job whatsoever, just some extra sheeting/trusses required to extend its length.
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be simple, because that's all that's needed. That doesn't make it a direct copy, though.

Agreed about extending the length.
 
lucis1225 said:
No doubt, ExLS cell is not deep enough for CAMM-ER, as CAMM-ER is roughly 1 meter longer than the standard CAMM, and it is actually pretty close to the length of Aster 15, both are approx. 4.2 meters long. If Naval Group intend to make 'Sylver CL' a multi-missile lanucher as they should, they should leave as much as reserve depth they could for future longer and larger missiles integration.
Click to expand...
So far they're putting it into the same space as Sylver A50, which can launch Aster 30, which is 4.9 metres. I don't know how much depth the cold launch thingy takes, & what there is in A50 under the missile which wouldn't be needed for cold launch, so can't say what maximum missile length it can take.

It's only suited for cold launch. Did you have any particular missiles in mind?
 
zen said:
Gas driven launch systems scale up to Trident in the West and the technology can obviously be engineered to handle far greater weights than the current CAMM cell system.
Russia has shown what 'soft/cold' launch systems can achieve.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but this is an encapsulated piston within the canister/transport container. It could be that 'beefing' that up adds significant weight to the canister, or the current 'safe' captured piston method cannot be scaled much further.
 
swerve said:
So far they're putting it into the same space as Sylver A50, which can launch Aster 30, which is 4.9 metres. I don't know how much depth the cold launch thingy takes, & what there is in A50 under the missile which wouldn't be needed for cold launch, so can't say what maximum missile length it can take.

It's only suited for cold launch. Did you have any particular missiles in mind?
Click to expand...

Unless someone wants go and develop their own cold launch solution it would have to be from MBDA's stable as they own the SVL method, and unless its their product or a partner I can't see them giving it out. That realistically means CAMM family members and whatever else MBDA (primarily UK division) has available. Realistically its not going to be over 250kg. In terms of their current product catalogue, and what a purchaser of a VL for a smaller vessel, or as a supplement for a larger hot launch VL on the platform, which tends to be the SVL niche amongst VL systems that would mean....

CAMM
CAMM-ER
Brimstone/Sea Spear (possibly with a turnover pack, although JAGM/Hellfire launch vertically and engages)
Spear (would require a rocket booster to get to speed)
Akeron LP
Enforcer/Enforcer-X/Defendair (could potentially be dual or even tri-packed? in a single canister)
Diamond-Shaped (Canister launched Loitering Munition with 50km range)
Sea Venom (would require turnover pack and repackaging and likely be a tight squeeze, might not be possible)

Possible if it fits...and if SVL weight limit can be moderately increased and launcher has ability to contain length/greater diameter)
RCM2 (strike missile with 500kg range, would need booster and would weigh in at c450kg, above current 250kg limit)
CAMM-MR (probably above 250kg limit, but might not be by a huge margin)
 
timmymagic said:
Unless someone wants go and develop their own cold launch solution it would have to be from MBDA's stable as they own the SVL method, and unless its their product or a partner I can't see them giving it out. That realistically means CAMM family members and whatever else MBDA (primarily UK division) has available. Realistically its not going to be over 250kg. In terms of their current product catalogue, and what a purchaser of a VL for a smaller vessel, or as a supplement for a larger hot launch VL on the platform, which tends to be the SVL niche amongst VL systems that would mean....
Click to expand...
Doesn't MBDA also build France's missiles? Their M51s? But at ballistic missile scale, your ejection gas generator is the size of a water heater or 55gal drum.

Rocket motor flashes a little puddle of water into steam (mostly to absorb the heat), then that all expands and pushes the bird up and out of the tube.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so MBDA does have heavy-throw cold launch design experience and engineers on it.
Click to expand...

Yes other cold launch systems are available and have long been in use, but they do come with disadvantages, particularly around missile design and the launch canister (the entirety of which becomes a pressure vessel and a lot heavier as a result). SVL is a very elegant engineering solution in comparison.
 
timmymagic said:
Unless someone wants go and develop their own cold launch solution it would have to be from MBDA's stable as they own the SVL method, and unless its their product or a partner I can't see them giving it out. That realistically means CAMM family members and whatever else MBDA (primarily UK division) has available. Realistically its not going to be over 250kg. In terms of their current product catalogue, and what a purchaser of a VL for a smaller vessel, or as a supplement for a larger hot launch VL on the platform, which tends to be the SVL niche amongst VL systems that would mean....

CAMM
CAMM-ER
Brimstone/Sea Spear (possibly with a turnover pack, although JAGM/Hellfire launch vertically and engages)
Spear (would require a rocket booster to get to speed)
Akeron LP
Enforcer/Enforcer-X/Defendair (could potentially be dual or even tri-packed? in a single canister)
Diamond-Shaped (Canister launched Loitering Munition with 50km range)
Sea Venom (would require turnover pack and repackaging and likely be a tight squeeze, might not be possible)

Possible if it fits...and if SVL weight limit can be moderately increased and launcher has ability to contain length/greater diameter)
RCM2 (strike missile with 500kg range, would need booster and would weigh in at c450kg, above current 250kg limit)
CAMM-MR (probably above 250kg limit, but might not be by a huge margin)
Click to expand...
The new brochure confirmed that CAMM-MR is also a cold lanuched missile as the other 2 family members.
1789379976472.jpeg
Thus, potientally, Sylver CL or similar cold lanucher should at least do some feasibility study to include CAMM-MR into their
Portfolio, I am not sure if CAMM-LR (Long Range) will be a thing in the future, but a 5 meters depth is must be considering the future proof factor.
 
If a CAMM-LR were to be developed, it would likely step into true ABM capability  or following the trends in long range AAMs, very long engagement ranges.
 
Stellerfella said:
Who knows... They're a joke at this point. Just get the damn radar up and get them out to sea
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I went back to look at old official statements and HMS Glasgow was originally scheduled* to be delivered in "summer 2025" after completing builders' trials.

Since builders' trials take 12+ months (especially on a 1st of class) that means that she should have started sea trials in early 2024... so construction is running 2.5-3 years behind an already slow schedule... no real way to excuse a 50% increase in build time).

(*The summer 2025 date is from parliamentary questions back in 2018, so construction was already well underway with first steel having been cut in summer 2017).
 
H_K said:
For what it's worth, I went back to look at old official statements and HMS Glasgow was originally scheduled* to be delivered in "summer 2025" after completing builders' trials.

Since builders' trials take 12+ months (especially on a 1st of class) that means that she should have started sea trials in early 2024... so construction is running 2.5-3 years behind an already slow schedule... no real way to excuse a 50% increase in build time).

(*The summer 2025 date is from parliamentary questions back in 2018, so construction was already well underway with first steel having been cut in summer 2017).
Click to expand...
What BAE wasn't telling everyone is that the design wasn't as mature as they were letting on. As they were building it and long lead items/parts started arriving, they were heavier than thought.

Type 26 has needed fixing in build to being the weight gain back under control and its set the Australian and Canadian programs back.

BAE are not a trustworthy partner
 
lucis1225 said:
The new brochure confirmed that CAMM-MR is also a cold lanuched missile as the other 2 family members.
View attachment 823770
Thus, potientally, Sylver CL or similar cold lanucher should at least do some feasibility study to include CAMM-MR into their
Portfolio, I am not sure if CAMM-LR (Long Range) will be a thing in the future, but a 5 meters depth is must be considering the future proof factor.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Its not on the MBDA website....and some of the text formatting looks a bit off to say the least....
 
timmymagic said:
Where did you get that from? Its not on the MBDA website....and some of the text formatting looks a bit off to say the least....
Click to expand...
Actually it is a Polish Brochure (Paper) which is translated into English by Google Lens, here is the original version. I believed that someone took a photo of this brochure from MSPO 2026.
1789459899756.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom