Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

[kqcke for you]

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.

Even the rocket motors taper down towards the nozzles, which is a feature I've never seen on any other missile.

Its probaly just a cost thing as if the seeker capabilities are seemed good enough then its cheaper to reuse the same parts. Likely the case for most subsonic and supersonic targets

 

[olek_z17]

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.

I mean, the seeker is gonna acquire the target only in the terminal stage of the flight, for the mid-course guidance it uses the data link (that's the mast with a dome that you can see on every iLauncher) and the information provided by the fire control radar. And using the same seeker section makes the missile cheaper (and lighter in this case).

 

[TorpedoJ]

I mean, the seeker is gonna acquire the target only in the terminal stage of the flight, for the mid-course guidance it uses the data link (that's the mast with a dome that you can see on every iLauncher) and the information provided by the fire control radar. And using the same seeker section makes the missile cheaper (and lighter in this case).

But, for example, when the AIM-174 was revealed the larger diameter of the seeker antenna was being described as a significant advantage for long-range engagements. It may be more of a factor in air to air combat but surely the SAM site being able to stop emitting at the target earlier in the engagement is still a good thing?
I would also expect that having a larger active seeker 'basket' is handy if the target evades below the radar horizon.

 

[olek_z17]

But, for example, when the AIM-174 was revealed the larger diameter of the seeker antenna was being described as a significant advantage for long-range engagements. It may be more of a factor in air to air combat but surely the SAM site being able to stop emitting at the target earlier in the engagement is still a good thing?
I would also expect that having a larger active seeker 'basket' is handy if the target evades below the radar horizon.

Because it generally is an advantage. But if we're going for a relatively low cost missile, reusing components from other missiles in the same family is also an advantage as not only you don't have to develop a new seeker, you can also reduce the existing seeker's unit cost by ordering more of them.

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2099121048469774634

View: https://x.com/thinkdefence/status/2099121048469774634?s=20

 

[Andhakara]

CAMM mssile news:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/camm.html
and test video:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRmGFVLJ08


It's more ASRAAM than it sounded (see attached pic, via www.defense-update.com), and reminds me of some SRAAM-75/Taildog variants as described in the Buttler/Gibson BSP with 'bonker' jet controls.

Some old CGI of the CAMM in action (on a BMT Venator):

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m81ede8b9g&feature=player_embedded


EDIT: Woops! Forgot that TinWing had already posted the same video over in the old thread.

It has unique Thrust Vectoring control system, Does anybody know more about it ?
it looks like Liquid injection or Hot gas Injection system me.
usually short range SAM's uses jet vanes , i am curious why they opted for liquird/gas injection thrust vectoring.

 

[olek_z17]

It has unique Thrust Vectoring control system, Does anybody know more about it ?
it looks like Liquid injection or Hot gas Injection system me.
usually short range SAM's uses jet vanes , i am curious why they opted for liquird/gas injection thrust vectoring.

It's not thrust vectoring, it's the turnover pack motors, they're there just to turn the missile in the target's direction after the launch.

 

[Andhakara]

I see, since it's a soft launch missile a turn over pack is much simpler than jetisonable jet vanes that ESSM's uses.

 

[timmymagic]

it's essentially a CAMM-SR that I remember someone in this thread was advocating for.

That was me. I was looking at a 70mm rocket diameter though in order to reuse cheap existing rocket designs like CRV-7. You could pack 9 into a standard CAMM canister...with 105mm you'll get 4 missiles. Still a good result particularly with SVL and turnover pack...hopefully that pack is ejected cleanly some distance from the launcher...

They're aiming at a price of around 75 000 USD, so quite cheap for the missile's planned performance

It is, but its not ground breaking, if they could shave some of that cost off the performance increase over APKWS for example would make it an absolute winner and no brainer for CAMM users...It won't have the raw speed of APKWS, but soft launch without efflux issues, independent terminal guidance, canisterisation and 360 degree engagement is a clear advantage...plus range over ground launched APKWS will be c50% more.

 

[MadRat]

APKWS doesn't have the sensor refresh speed for supersonic interception. Plenty for subsonic. So to get it where it needs to be as a CIWS option, it would require hardware updating.

 

[timmymagic]

APKWS doesn't have the sensor refresh speed for supersonic interception. Plenty for subsonic. So to get it where it needs to be as a CIWS option, it would require hardware updating.

Are we talking about APKWS II?

 

[DJK]

That was me. I was looking at a 70mm rocket diameter though in order to reuse cheap existing rocket designs like CRV-7. You could pack 9 into a standard CAMM canister...with 105mm you'll get 4 missiles. Still a good result particularly with SVL and turnover pack...hopefully that pack is ejected cleanly some distance from the launcher...

Didnt it say the turnover pack is ejected when the motor starts up? But it could be very light weight or even just burn up.

It is, but its not ground breaking, if they could shave some of that cost off the performance increase over APKWS for example would make it an absolute winner and no brainer for CAMM users...It won't have the raw speed of APKWS, but soft launch without efflux issues, independent terminal guidance, canisterisation and 360 degree engagement is a clear advantage...plus range over ground launched APKWS will be c50% more.

So a 70mm version would be CAMM-VSR

 

[TorpedoJ]

That was me. I was looking at a 70mm rocket diameter though in order to reuse cheap existing rocket designs like CRV-7. You could pack 9 into a standard CAMM canister...with 105mm you'll get 4 missiles. Still a good result particularly with SVL and turnover pack...hopefully that pack is ejected cleanly some distance from the launcher...

That seems a little ambitious. CAMM-ER with its 190mm diameter was designed specifically to maximise some unused space inside the 275mm square canister. So if I had to guess you'd only get 4 70mm rockets in a CAMM canister, though circle packing suggests you'd get 2 105mm ones in the same way 2 CAMM-MR fit in mk41.
If you make the space mk41 sized, however, the wasted space between the CAMM canisters can be used to give a 16 pack of missiles. A huge amount of wasted volume lower in the cell, though.