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.

 

[timmymagic]

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.

Yes but in some applications (well most actually) you want this to be a fairly benign event as far away from the launcher/battery as possible. Blasted off by ignition of the rocket motor would not be the most popular method...

So a 70mm version would be CAMM-VSR

To be honest looking at the cost of APKWS II with its IIR seeker I'd be happy to forget about any 70mm CAMM family member....although if someone added a cheap laser homing head and proximity fuze to CVR-7 as an air/ground launcher weapon (not from canisters, hot launch) I could be persuaded...

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.

It would be tight, no doubt about it. Here's how it would look. Here's a square scaled to measure 249mm x 249mm. Each circle is scaled to 105mm, with a minimum of 13mm between them. In addition, I've shaved off 13mm from the total square on all sides to represent the outer walls of the canister (13mm thickness, outside the yellow area). 13mm chosen because it allows 4 x 105mm circles to be squeezed in with maximum thickness of outer casing and gap between rockets.

To be honest I think its doable...

 

[timmymagic]

For 70mm you get this.... 9 x 70mm circles with 11mm minimum between them, and allowance for an additional 10mm casing outside of the yellow area (the yellow square is scaled for 254mm).

 

[DJK]

To be honest looking at the cost of APKWS II with its IIR seeker I'd be happy to forget about any 70mm CAMM family member....although if someone added a cheap laser homing head and proximity fuze to CVR-7 as an air/ground launcher weapon (not from canisters, hot launch) I could be persuaded...

I think the 6km effective range of the 105mm version is about as low as you want to go for CIWS purposes. Maybe cUAS justifies shorter engagements, but any less than 6km you are starting to get more value from guns. However, I have an idea that a mixture of CAMM and the new short range system would be a good vertical launch alternative with a wider engagement window compared to RAM launchers. ExLS goes behind the hangar or peripheral, while CIWS guns have to fit somewhere that wont interfere, maybe a raised gun platform, while the new box launcher sits in the middle.

 

[zen]

The CMI box looks small enough and theoretically light enough you could trailer it on a decent Landrover or pickup truck.

Ability to move this sort of capability around quickly could prove vital.

I would like to see alternative rockets for CAMM and CMI cells as well.
Basically equivalents to Jumper as mobile light tactical artillery systems.

 

[DJK]

I would like to see alternative rockets for CAMM and CMI cells as well.
Basically equivalents to Jumper as mobile light tactical artillery systems.

You mean a longer missile to make use of the deeper CAMM cells?

 

[timmymagic]

I would like to see alternative rockets for CAMM and CMI cells as well.
Basically equivalents to Jumper as mobile light tactical artillery systems.

That was the, sadly now defunct, Brimstone/CAMM mashup (actually 178mm calibre rather than 166mm) that was originally for the Land Precision Strike requirement (formally LPIF). That got superceded by an elongated hot launched Spear variant (a sort of ground launched Spear-ER) launched from M270 for even greater range. I suspect these days they'd be looking at an OWE solution instead.

while the new box launcher sits in the middle.

Even if you just wanted CMI missile on a warship you could seperate them in small cluster like countermeasure dispensers, or the launch tubes for Coyote 2 that the USN has started adding... worth noting that CMI at $75k is about half the price of Coyote 2. A whole lot faster, but a little less range and no loiter/re-attack.

 

[olek_z17]

Still a good result particularly with SVL and turnover pack...hopefully that pack is ejected cleanly some distance from the launcher...

Yes but in some applications (well most actually) you want this to be a fairly benign event as far away from the launcher/battery as possible. Blasted off by ignition of the rocket motor would not be the most popular method...

Yes, the pack is ejected by the exhaust from the main motor, so above the launcher. Though they also mentioned that all of the turnover thrusters are to be ignited before the pack is ejected, so it shouldn't pose any danger besides being a relatively heavy object falling from the sky hah
At least that's the concept for now, the first test launches are scheduled for next year here in Poland, so we'll see how the design changes after that.

ou could pack 9 into a standard CAMM canister...with 105mm you'll get 4 missiles.

Doubt they'll make a CAMM sized quad pack canister, they way Americans made a PAC-2 sized quad pack canister for the PAC-3 CRI. Especially that the CMI's launch canister size also depends on the size of the gas generator and the cold launch system, so it might be too big to fit into the CAMM canister footprint like that. And that would require two types of launch canisters - one with a single missile, for that 32 missile launcher they've shown, and one with four missiles, for the iLauncher. However, since it's MBDA UK that WITU is cooperating with here, I'm almost 100% sure that we'll see an iLauncher missile rack for the CMI sooner than later, with at least 18 missiles I suspect.
And speaking of the iLauncher. When I wast talking with an MBDA representative at their booth at MSPO, he mentioned that they're looking into increasing the number of missiles carried on the single launcher. At least that's supposedly one of the possible ways that MBDA could further develop the iLauncher, possibly together with Polish industry:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2097287765247316010

View: https://x.com/AgencjaUzbr/status/2097287765247316010?s=20
.

The CMI box looks small enough and theoretically light enough you could trailer it on a decent Landrover or pickup truck.

The missile itself is around 1,9 meters long, at least that's what I got from the photo of the mock-up that WITU presented at their booth. So I think it's quite likely that the whole launch canister is short enough to fit vertically into an ISO container. Or perhaps even into some wheeled land platforms, to create something conceptually similar to the Tor system, for VSHORAD closer to the front line.

 

[DJK]

Yes, the pack is ejected by the exhaust from the main motor, so above the launcher. Though they also mentioned that all of the turnover thrusters are to be ignited before the pack is ejected, so it shouldn't pose any danger besides being a relatively heavy object falling from the sky hah

So thats the reason for the whole launcher being tipped on an angle like that...

 

[MadRat]

With exhaust in mind, there looks to be room for deflecting vents. More or less the venting from top depends on rate of fire. Probably limited to 2-3 simultaneously leaving. Plenty of time to unload a cannister in a few seconds. Now, disperse them so they won't be eliminated by one hit. Give them batteries and allow the controllers some independence from main power. They need to stay online a few hours when main generators go offline.

With EOTS being placed on modern ships, there is still fight left when radars go down.

 

[olek_z17]

So thats the reason for the whole launcher being tipped on an angle like that...

Not quite. According to the guys from WITU that I've talked to, the reason for that (15° if I recall) tilt is as old as the idea of cold vertical launch itself - if the motor malfunctions, the missile lands next to the launcher instead of on top of it. Which is a somewhat valid concern here since we're talking about a missile that's meant to be produced and used in very high numbers, so some malfunctions will eventually happen. Also, 32 missiles would be quite a high number to loose if something went wrong.

 

[zen]

You mean a longer missile to make use of the deeper CAMM cells?

No I mean a light rocket artillery system able to reposition and respond quickly.

Mixing 40km artillery rockets, counter drone missiles and a few LAAM (local area anti-air missile) gives an ability to respond to incursion by troops using drones and aircraft. Rapidly enough to knock the initiative out of such a move.

Mates with the current French experiments in 'lego' brick formations.

 

[MihoshiK]

Not quite. According to the guys from WITU that I've talked to, the reason for that (15° if I recall) tilt is as old as the idea of cold vertical launch itself - if the motor malfunctions, the missile lands next to the launcher instead of on top of it. Which is a somewhat valid concern here since we're talking about a missile that's meant to be produced and used in very high numbers, so some malfunctions will eventually happen. Also, 32 missiles would be quite a high number to loose if something went wrong.

Heck, even the mushroom farm CAMM cells are angled. It's just a good idea.

 

[olek_z17]

Mixing 40km artillery rockets, counter drone missiles and a few LAAM (local area anti-air missile) gives an ability to respond to incursion by troops using drones and aircraft. Rapidly enough to knock the initiative out of such a move.

Not sure if putting all that on a single launcher is a good idea tbh, you'll end up with a death star that's too heavy and yet doesn't have enough missiles of each type to perform any of its roles.

 

[MadRat]

254 mm is 10 inches. I don't think he was referring to timmymagic's posts. Maybe zen wants artillery rockets in the mushroom farm?

 

[DJK]

With exhaust in mind, there looks to be room for deflecting vents. More or less the venting from top depends on rate of fire. Probably limited to 2-3 simultaneously leaving. Plenty of time to unload a cannister in a few seconds. Now, disperse them so they won't be eliminated by one hit. Give them batteries and allow the controllers some independence from main power. They need to stay online a few hours when main generators go offline.

With EOTS being placed on modern ships, there is still fight left when radars go down.

Why do you need to deflect exhaust on a cold launch missile? But maybe the eflux system on Mk-41 could deflect the CAMM a bit in case of misfires. Can't see how though.

Not sure if putting all that on a single launcher is a good idea tbh, you'll end up with a death star that's too heavy and yet doesn't have enough missiles of each type to perform any of its roles.

With 30 missile cells you do have a chance to add some air defence, but a radar and AD command goes on the same vehicle?

 

[timmymagic]

With 30 missile cells you do have a chance to add some air defence, but a radar and AD command goes on the same vehicle?

It would be a big vehicle...TOR is an absolute unit. Seems to be consistent across all countries that if you want radars, other sensors, command, power generation and the missiles/guns on the same unit you're either going to have to accept a limited missile count/smaller gun, lower capability missiles/guns, less capable sensors....or its going to be big...very big. And if you want/need all that on one vehicle its usually because you envisage it operating close to the front in a mobile role...so big is a disadvantage. The Russians/Soviets obviously thought the advantages outweighed the risks when they built TOR and Tunguska.

Cold vertical launch (like TOR) does make life a little simpler though... with no need for traverse mechanisms.