An interception of a subsonic missile at 200m is likely a mission kill, with the ship's radars being peppered with fragments and unusable.
Absolutely! And hopefully a few lasers if we can delay the hostilities for a few years.
Im not sure anyone wants to intercept at the absolute minimum range but if theres a class of target thats hard to kill with guns, that option is still available. You dont delete the shorter range weapons just because you dont like using them.
Well CAMM gives you a potential choice of baseline or ER if you have big enough VLS so its more flexible, but in effect its either/or. CAMM also seems to tempt navies into fewer installed cells compared to ESSM + RAM. For example, ANZAC frigates originally had 8 Mk-41 cells for Sea Sparrow (could have been replaced by 32 ESSM) + Phalanx, compared to the NZ ones now having the Mk-41 replaced by only 20 mushrooms. Being able to fill Albatros MR or ER cells with baseline CAMM would also reduce numbers available for longer range.
Think that links broken
I wonder how will the final product look like. Just an iLauncher-style TEL adapted for the CV90 chassis or something more similar to what Diehl is currently doing with the newest IRIS-T SLS variants?
I reckon using the bolts as a reference and the square end cap of the canister you could get pretty close
An impossible task because same bolt designs can have different sizes and the resolution isn't good enough to find the model. Im gonna try using the diameter for the VLS case and then that for 1 mushroom to then use here. Tought its gonna take a week until im back home again
That drawing was a depiction of how many CAMM launch containers one could fit into a Sylver-sized VLS module (40-48 depending on how tightly these can be packed, instead of 24 which Naval Group proposes), I honestly have no idea how big the 6 cell mushroom farm module might be. Could try to estimate the dimensions based on the models and photos though, I'll see what I can do.
2×1 meters? That's not as bad as I thought, not nearly as bad. That means 30 CAMMs in the footprint of 2 Sylver modules, so something actually worth considering as of now, before that Sylver-sized VLS for 24 CAMMs becomes available.
For safety margins 2×1,1 meters seems better but yeah only question would be if the cannister are straight or angled
ANZAC frigates have topweight issues. The RNZN didn't want to enclose the quarterdeck & ballast their frigates down, increasing draught & reducing top speed & perhaps range. For the RAN, that wasn't just to allow the carriage of 32 ESSM, but also CEAFAR, but even without the heavier mast, I think the mods had a significant effect on topweight.
If this render from the Italians also applies to the British mushrooms, then the canisters are indeed angled.
MICA-VL apparently has a wingspan of 48cm, with fixed fins.
Fixed fins and in this case also the efflux duct integrated into each launch container, as using one duct per missile instead of sharing one between two to four missiles is just a waste of space.
Haven't heard about anything new. For now that is, since there is a chance we'll get some info from the Polish MoD in maybe a month or so, as this interpellation (which I may or may not have co-authored) appeared on the Polish parliament website. The recipient of such an inquiry, in this case our minister of defense, is legally obliged to answer these questions within 21 days. That being said, the answer may just boil down to "it's classified" as it's defense matters we're talking about here. So we might actually get some official answers even before the MSPO expo, where there will likely be some news on the MR anyways.
It's very space-inefficient. The only real advantage is its flexibility. If you only want to install 1, 2, 3 etc missiles somewhere you can. You don't have to reserve space for an entire 6 or 8 cell launcher.
True. But then again, they could've just designed a launch container without the duct and then a dedicated single, double and quadruple VLS module. That would also prevent the ground based version of the VL MICA from being such an abomination.
Thanks so 181kg for a CAMM launch container.
Well, they've shown a containerized SL-ASRAAM launcher on one of their renders, so maybe they'll explore the idea of using the CAMM for the same purpose. Not the biggest fan of such launchers though, I think a 20ft container floor as a base for the launcher is enough modularity. I'm also pretty sure the existing iLauncher could fit more CAMMs if the current missile rack got redesigned to have 6 columns of missiles instead of 4, the same way it was on the FLAADS(L) launcher.
Booster as in the MR's rocket motor or as in its 1st stage? Because from what I know and from what we can see from the mock-up that MBDA shows the MR will be a single stage missile, so no booster. As for who will be responsible for the MR's rocket motor, we'll see, but my bet is either on Avio or on some of the Polish defense companies, but we'll see.
CMI = Common Mass Interceptor
I correct myself its Counter Mass Interceptor
It's the Counter Mass Interceptor as it was already mentioned here. And as for what it physically is as a missile, it's essentially a CAMM-SR that I remember someone in this thread was advocating for. MBDA UK's low cost IIR seeker, WITU's 105 mm rocket motor, range of "over 6 km", though when I talked with people from the WITU stand they were quoting up to 7-8 km if I recall. Cold start also, similar to the CAMM, but with the turnover pack (with 6 motors) being jettisoned by the ignition of the main rocket motor instead of being integrated into the missile like on the CAMM. The launcher itself is a Polish proposal, actually older as a concept than the cooperation with MBDA, and despite being angled, it's essentially a vertical launcher in that it doesn't rotate and the missile is positioned towards its target after it leaves the tube. As of now it's the only launcher they are planning to integrate the missile with (I've asked specifically about the one on the HMT, from Farnborough, and they said they have persuaded MBDA away from that idea), but WITU has also developed a hardpoint for aircraft integration, mainly with unmanned systems in mind. They're aiming at a price of around 75 000 USD, so quite cheap for the missile's planned performance.
Yeah, about that…
Something i find interresting is that they want to retain the same control fins same as CAMM-ER.
They don't though, the MR's fins are thicker. It's not that easy to see it on that brochure though, should be clearer on the image below.
Right totally wrong on my part i meant the Control Fin Section all 3 have seemingly the same tapered down section there which looks the same as the upper part.
That is a bit odd, you'd think that MBDA would take advantage of the wider rocket motor to have a larger diameter seeker even if it used all of the same components. 100km feels a long way to be using the same seeker as a local defence missile, though I've never been very clear on how powerful missile seekers actually are and the differences between them.
