Frégate de Taille Intermédiaire (FTI)

[BonPlan2]

Last news from Portugal are not good for FTI....

 

[Titus K]

For the FDI in Sweden : it would be ExLS lauchers (CAMM-ER) in addition to 2 Sylver launchers.
So no CAMM/Sylver integration.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defe...-d-integrer-un-vls-americain-sur-ses-fregates

 

[Titus K]

News for CAMM Family missiles :
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defe...plus-de-16-aster-soit-64-missiles-antiaeriens
Forget ExLS on FDI, that idea has been dropped apparently ... Naval Group wants to be able to offer a densely packed CAMM launcher without being dependent on a US laucher...

So NG is developing a cold-laucher for CAMM family missiles !

The launcher takes the same amount of space as a 8 cell Sylver launcher, but fits 24 CAMM missiles

This new launcher will be operational before 2030

Possible loadouts for sweden could thus be :

• 16 Aster 30/B1NT + 48 CAMM-ER
• 16 Aster 30/B1NT + 8 Aster 15 EC + 24 CAMM-ER
• 24 Aster 30/B1NT + 24 CAMM-ER
• Also with 57mm bofors, Torped 47 and RBS-15 missiles.

With its new CL, Naval Group will indeed be able to offer no fewer than 24 CAMM missiles in place of a single Sylver launcher.

In practical terms, the FDI can therefore, for example, carry 16 Aster 15 or Aster 30 missiles in two Sylver A50 cells and, in addition, up to 48 CAMM in the forward wells — for an impressive total of 64 anti-air missiles.

There is still the option of adding, as is the case for the Greek FDIs, a RAM short-range surface-to-air system (21 RIM-116 missiles) or Naval Group’s future modular multipurpose launcher (LMP), which could, for example, hold 8 Mistral missiles.

This gives a potential total of up to 85 anti-air missiles, combining systems ranging from ballistic and hypersonic missile defense to the neutralization of multiple drones.

This completely changes the FDI’s military potential, whose launchers can also be mixed in other configurations — for example, three Sylver A50 for 24 Asters and one CL module with 24 CAMM. Or again, two Sylver A50 (16 Asters), 24 CAMM, and one Sylver A70 for 8 MdCN, in order to add a deep-strike capability on top of air defense.

 

[H_K]

Wow. 24 Aster 30 + 24 CAAM ER + 21 RAM would be just about the perfect mix in my book. With also a strong case for the new MPLS launcher to replace RAM with a more versatile and cost-effective anti-UAV/anti-missile capability (eg. mix of 8 Mistral SAMs and 30 laser guided rockets).

I wonder if that would be retrofitable? The Greeks might want it too for their FDIs… not sure if it was offered as an option.

And was it offered to Norway? Silly to pass on that kind of AAW capability.

 

[BonPlan2]

A game changer may be next gen ASTER 15, with a doubled range versus actual missile.
Aster 15 & 30 missiles worked perfectly but are costly, specially if it is to shoot a wooden UCAV...
I don't know how cheaper is CAMM, but it is indeed a good low end complement to Aster.

 

[Titus K]

Wow. 24 Aster 30 + 24 CAAM ER + 21 RAM would be just about the perfect mix in my book. With also a strong case for the new MPLS launcher to replace RAM with a more versatile and cost-effective anti-UAV/anti-missile capability (eg. mix of 8 Mistral SAMs and 30 laser guided rockets).

Just for fun, you could also do this :

8 Stratus RS / Exocet / NSM​

16 MdCN cruise missiles (in case the Stratus LO doesn't fit A70 cells)​

48 CAMM-ER (or 24 CAMM-ER + 8 Aster B1NT)​

+ RAM or MPLS​

Wich would be very close to a T26 (8 cruise missiles shy) on a much much smaller hull.
Probably not smart in a supersonic / hypersonic environment ... but a funny "what if"

I wonder if this "CL" launcher was ready during the Norway tender or if it's a more recent developpement ?

 

[timmymagic]

I wonder if CAMM-ER will be integrated in Sylver (for the Italian Navy notably) or if they plan to install ExLS/Mk41 or Mushroom Farms ?

Italian Navy appear to have abandoned the idea.

M&M doesn't seem to know either, but mentions Sylver as a possibility.
https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defe...se-la-fdi-avec-des-missiles-britanniques-camm

This is related specifically to CAMM, which Sweden operates. Apparently, Naval Group are either developing/or thinking about developing a Standalone ExLS equivalent for FDI that could house CAMM. That should address one of the major criticisms of FDI that it is underarmed...

But have they actually checked with the UK....can't see why MBDA UK and the UK Government would throw Naval Group a bone/lifeline...

 

[Titus K]

This is related specifically to CAMM, which Sweden operates. Apparently, Naval Group are either developing/or thinking about developing a Standalone ExLS equivalent for FDI that could house CAMM. That should address one of the major criticisms of FDI that it is underarmed...

Yes, they are developping a 24 cell CAMM-MR launcher
MBDA is working with them on a new ITR for all MBDA missiles, for now only Aster and Exocet were planned, but a CAMM-ER version will probably arrive soon
Also CAMM-ER is already integrated with Thales systems thanks to SAMP/T NG (also, groundfire and seafire are the same family)

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mbdas-new-generation-shipborne-firing-installation-for-all-missiles

But have they actually checked with the UK....can't see why MBDA UK and the UK Government would throw Naval Group a bone/lifeline...

Well, allowing an american launcher to use CAMM but not a french one would certainly be a brilliant move in todays world ... And France could block Aster / Mk41 integration in return. No one wins.

 

[timmymagic]

Well, allowing an american launcher to use CAMM but not a french one would certainly be a brilliant move in todays world ... And France could block Aster / Mk41 integration in return. No one wins.

Who is actually bothered about Aster into Mk.41 though...

Yes, they are developping a 24 cell CAMM-MR launcher

It doesn't appear to be CAMM-MR. It appears to be CAMM. CAMM-MR has only been seen to date in Mk.41 twin packed for Poland.

 

[Titus K]

Who is actually bothered about Aster into Mk.41 though...

Well possibly the RN for T83 or even Sweden who want anti ballictic capabilities ?
The other option is US missiles in Mk41.

It doesn't appear to be CAMM-MR. It appears to be CAMM. CAMM-MR has only been seen to date in Mk.41 twin packed for Poland.

It is CAMM-ER. it's stated multiple times in Mer et Marine's article and even by Naval Group.

I actually don't know is the shorter range CAMM or the longer range CAMM-MR are also planned...

 

[H_K]

It is CAMM-MR. it's stated multiple times in Mer et Marine's article and even by Naval Group.

I think it’s CAMM ER, no? Not MR. (According to MeretMarine)

The product hierarchy is certainly quite confusing lol… in what alternative universe does it make sense for CAMM MR to have more range than CAMM ER? It would make more sense to have CAMM -> CAMM MR -> CAMM LR or ER.

@timmymagic I would think that MBDA UK would have no issues with Naval Group developing a new launcher that helps MBDA win more export sales. There’s been plenty of criticism of the low density mushroom farms on T26, Anzac & T45 upgrades etc. Imagine if you could double CAMM density with a compact 24 cell launcher that’s easily interchangeable with Sylver (in terms of deck footprint). The only high density alternative is 3-cell EXLS, which is more modular but adds a layer of complexity with quad packing and is subject to US export restrictions… so the market might be open to an alternative. BAE and Babcock might not be most enthusiastic but perhaps they could use it themselves in their own ship designs?

 

[Titus K]

I think it’s CAMM ER, no? Not MR. (According to MeretMarine)

The product hierarchy is certainly quite confusing lol… in what alternative universe does it make sense for CAMM MR to have more range than CAMM ER? It would make more sense to have CAMM -> CAMM MR -> CAMM LR or ER.

Yes Yes ... the 45km one haha

 

[zen]

CAMM came first.
Then with the Italians came an Extended Range CAMM. Which is fundamentally just a Extended range development of the existing missile. By extending it's length.

The Poles and possibly the UK then devised a scaled up missile CAMM-MR. Which uses the same technology and similar aerodynamics. But is aimed at true Medium Range capabilities.

 

[timmymagic]

It is CAMM-ER. it's stated multiple times in Mer et Marine's article and even by Naval Group.

You mentioned CAMM-MR previously...see below quote...

Yes, they are developping a 24 cell CAMM-MR launcher

CAMM-ER may refer to the long planned, but never actually contracted, integration into Sylver. Which at one point the Marina Militare was planning (however they have walked back from that). Of which the only thing we're reasonably certain of would be that it won't be quadpacked...

I think it’s CAMM ER, no? Not MR. (According to MeretMarine)

CAMM-ER is mentioned in the Infographic. The MeretMarine article text however refers to CAMM, specifically because that missile will be in Swedish service on the Visby Class. NOT the CAMM-ER, which at present will only be used at sea by the Pakistani Navy (under the name Albatros NG).

The product hierarchy is certainly quite confusing lol… in what alternative universe does it make sense for CAMM MR to have more range than CAMM ER? It would make more sense to have CAMM -> CAMM MR -> CAMM LR or ER.

Makes perfect sense. CAMM-ER is an 'Extended Range' variant of CAMM. CAMM-MR takes the missile into Medium Range territory. Any missile developed beyond that would presumably add LR for Long Range at the end.

@timmymagic I would think that MBDA UK would have no issues with Naval Group developing a new launcher that helps MBDA win more export sales. There’s been plenty of criticism of the low density mushroom farms on T26, Anzac & T45 upgrades etc. Imagine if you could double CAMM density with a compact 24 cell launcher that’s easily interchangeable with Sylver (in terms of deck footprint). The only high density alternative is 3-cell EXLS, which is more modular but adds a layer of complexity with quad packing and is subject to US export restrictions… so the market might be open to an alternative. BAE and Babcock might not be most enthusiastic but perhaps they could use it themselves in their own ship designs?

MBDA UK might not...but their parent company BAE Systems who owns them (lets not pretend that the MBDA ownership structure fiction in reality crosses national boundaries...) may well object if it interferes with T26 sales....and the British Government who own a controlling stake in BAE Systems, plus own a lot of the IP (and ultimately control it) would object to anything that interferes with Babcocks sales of T31/A140 derivatives...

MBDA UK already have (or will do shortly due to the Saudi MMSC and Swedish Visby work) a viable multi round launcher in Standalone ExLS. Given that all the UK designs include Mk.41 as the VL and not Sylver US content is not an issue, I just can't see them throwing NG a bone to dig themselves out of a self inflicted hole...

Well possibly the RN for T83 or even Sweden who want anti ballictic capabilities ?
The other option is US missiles in Mk41.

The jury appears to be out on whether Aster will make an appearance in Type 83...

Please note I'm not anti it as a capability. I've previously said the UK should have standardised on a strike length Sylver instead of Mk.41 (a Sylver A70NG with slightly wider diameter to match Mk.41 would have been perfect) as at the time Mk.41 offered the UK little. But the UK has no industrial involvement in Aster or Sylver....the pace of development of both is glacial as well....and I think that both of those facts might need to change in the future to interest the UK....right now the UK is moving towards Strike Length Mk.41 as the standard and that doesn't bode well for Aster's long term future in UK service (Aster is expensive, slow to produce and as planned does not provide high end capabilities of some US missiles).

 

[olek_z17]

A game changer may be next gen ASTER 15, with a doubled range versus actual missile.

No quadpack for a 60 km missile still is a significant disadvantage. Aster 15 is a nice thing for carriers, enabling them to have highly capable self defense missiles in rather compact A43 cells, but for frigates that would have Asters 30 it's kinda pointless.
Especially that 24 missiles is far from the maximum amount you can fit into the space of a Sylver module, I've already mentioned in another thread that it would technically be possible to fit up to 42-48 (accounting for all the structural elements needed to hold the launch containers in place of course).

 

[timmymagic]

No quadpack for a 60 km missile still is a significant disadvantage. Aster 15 is a nice thing for carriers, enabling them to have highly capable self defense missiles in rather compact A43 cells, but for frigates that would have Asters 30 it's kinda pointless.
Especially that 24 missiles is far from the maximum amount you can fit into the space of a Sylver module, I've already mentioned in another thread that it would technically be possible to fit up to 42-48 (accounting for all the structural elements needed to hold the launch containers in place of course).

Yeah the Aster 15 concept I think has had its day, except in limited circumstances (ships with A43 exclusively). Makes no sense to buy a hugely expensive effector in the Aster missile (which is the same across 15 and 30 variant)...then massively constrain its ability by giving it a smaller booster at marginally cheaper cost...which even then due to its nature does not actually give you exceptional close in protection (minimum engagement range of 2km). With RN moving to a wholly Aster 30 stockpile when they're re-lifed, and SAMP-T being exclusively Aster 30 (Aster 30 is believed to have a minimum engagement range of 3km, 1 km more than Aster 15) it makes more sense for users to focus on medium-long range engagements with Aster 30 variants, ditch 15 and get something that works real close like CAMM or RAM.

 

[BonPlan2]

Yeah the Aster 15 concept I think has had its day, except in limited circumstances (ships with A43 exclusively). Makes no sense to buy a hugely expensive effector in the Aster missile (which is the same across 15 and 30 variant)...then massively constrain its ability by giving it a smaller booster at marginally cheaper cost...which even then due to its nature does not actually give you exceptional close in protection (minimum engagement range of 2km). With RN moving to a wholly Aster 30 stockpile when they're re-lifed, and SAMP-T being exclusively Aster 30 (Aster 30 is believed to have a minimum engagement range of 3km, 1 km more than Aster 15) it makes more sense for users to focus on medium-long range engagements with Aster 30 variants, ditch 15 and get something that works real close like CAMM or RAM.

ASTER 15 has a better lower effective range than ASTER 30. It may be interesting against VLO missiles, detected at the very mast moment.... If not, sure ASTER 30 is better.
CAMM is a very good complement to ASTER 30 and even ASTER 15 (because ASTER missile is unmatched in kind of Probability of Kill)

 

[timmymagic]

ASTER 15 has a better lower effective range than ASTER 30. It may be interesting against VLO missiles, detected at the very mast moment.... If not, sure ASTER 30 is better.
CAMM is a very good complement to ASTER 30 and even ASTER 15 (because ASTER missile is unmatched in kind of Probability of Kill)

It does...by 1km. From 3km to 2km....what do you do in those last 2km? Pray?

But also ask yourself what has a higher probability of kill...1 x Aster 15 with a minimum range of 2km....or 4+ CAMM, with minimum engagement ranges of 200m, that will cost less than 1 Aster 15 and occupy less volume onboard and are easier to site...ditching Aster 15, focusing on Aster 30 with its superior range and kinematics, and leaving inner defence to another system is a sensible move.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But also ask yourself what has a higher probability of kill...1 x Aster 15 with a minimum range of 2km....or 4+ CAMM, with minimum engagement ranges of 200m, that will cost less than 1 Aster 15 and occupy less volume onboard and are easier to site...ditching Aster 15, focusing on Aster 30 with its superior range and kinematics, and leaving inner defence to another system is a sensible move.

Exactly.

Same reason USN has ESSMs and RAM.

Aster 15 is simply no longer the best tool for the job.

 

[BonPlan2]

It does...by 1km. From 3km to 2km....what do you do in those last 2km? Pray?

But also ask yourself what has a higher probability of kill...1 x Aster 15 with a minimum range of 2km....or 4+ CAMM, with minimum engagement ranges of 200m, that will cost less than 1 Aster 15 and occupy less volume onboard and are easier to site...ditching Aster 15, focusing on Aster 30 with its superior range and kinematics, and leaving inner defence to another system is a sensible move.

I agree, but always think ASTER more potent against high agility target, thanks to PIF PAF and bigger warhead.

 

[BonPlan2]

Exactly.

Same reason USN has ESSMs and RAM.

Aster 15 is simply no longer the best tool for the job.

There is no better tool, but different systems complementing each other, with different price, range, pk...
Even Mistral can be used (or try to be used) against a missile.

 

[olek_z17]

I agree, but always think ASTER more potent against high agility target, thanks to PIF PAF and bigger warhead.

It is, but the price for that is no quadpack possibility. And while one Aster 15 has better hit probability than one CAMM-ER, you can have four times as many CAMMs in the same space.

 

[BonPlan2]

It is, but the price for that is no quadpack possibility. And while one Aster 15 has better hit probability than one CAMM-ER, you can have four times as many CAMMs in the same space.

Agree. It is why having the 2 aboard the same platform is best.
I hope all the french frigates, including FREMM, to have a combination of the 2. CAMM is most convenient than MICA VL.

 

[DWG]

MBDA is working with them on a new ITR for all MBDA missiles, for now only Aster and Exocet were planned, but a CAMM-ER version will probably arrive soon
Also CAMM-ER is already integrated with Thales systems thanks to SAMP/T NG (also, groundfire and seafire are the same family)

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mbdas-new-generation-shipborne-firing-installation-for-all-missiles

Worth noting that this article is referring to the control interface, not the box the weapon goes in.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is no better tool, but different systems complementing each other, with different price, range, pk...
Even Mistral can be used (or try to be used) against a missile.

Aster 30 is the same missile with a different booster.
In terms of overall loading or even Pk, 4x CAMM is much better than Aster 15.

 

[Titus K]

Since i still regularly stumble upon claims that the FDI is a mediterranean frigate only

https://www.naval-group.com/en/fdi-effective-efficient-resilient?trk=public_post_comment-text
Since the delivery of lead ship Amiral Ronarc’h, the FDI has proven in high sea states its superior stability, and thus mission performance:

• 20 knots in sea state 7 (taking head-on 6-9m waves) already demonstrated in real life by FDI Amiral Ronarc’h.
• Reduced slamming effect and very low foredeck submersion rate, minimising stress and fatigue for the crew, the hull and onboard systems.
• Exceeds the top speed requirement of 27 knots.

 

[Ainen]

Since i still regularly stumble upon claims that the FDI is a mediterranean frigate only

I don't support this claim(it's weird), but just to make "just" saying that frigate can work at sea states doesn't have anything with it being Mediterranean or not.
Mediterranean can give you one hell of a storm - it sunk more than a few combat ships in 20th century. The difference isn't that sea states in enclosed seas are harmless; the wave is different.

 

[Titus K]

I don't support this claim(it's weird), but just to make "just" saying that frigate can work at sea states doesn't have anything with it being Mediterranean or not.
Mediterranean can give you one hell of a storm - it sunk more than a few combat ships in 20th century. The difference isn't that sea states in enclosed seas are harmless; the wave is different.

Sure the waves are different, but SS7 (6-9m waves) is still extremely rare in the med.
The difference with the bay of Biscay (where french frigates trial) is pretty massive.

I should have said "a mediterranean frigate unfit to handle the harsh atlantic and north sea conditions"

 

[Ainen]

Sure the waves are different, but SS7 (6-9m waves) is still extremely rare in the med.
The difference with the bay of Biscay (where french frigates trial) is pretty massive.

I should have said "a mediterranean frigate unfit to handle the harsh atlantic and north sea conditions"

Building ship to averages doesn't work anyway. Italians were doing fine until WW2, but turned out their own backyard (which, as per your graphs, is the calmest area of mediterranean) isn't nearly as safe as it was during peacetime.
Operations are planned per war needs rather than on safety basis!

 

[sparky42]

Sure the waves are different, but SS7 (6-9m waves) is still extremely rare in the med.
The difference with the bay of Biscay (where french frigates trial) is pretty massive.

I should have said "a mediterranean frigate unfit to handle the harsh atlantic and north sea conditions"

Well the first of the French ones is going on a working up cruise in the Atlantic, High North and Baltic, so I guess the question will be answered soon enough.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-fdi-frigate-begins-long-duration-deployment/Also the First Greek hull has been delivered:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011760016332898661

View: https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/2011760016332898661

 

[Martes]

 

[EmoBirb]

Amiral-Ronarc’h alongside a German 212A in the North Sea (photo taken by norwegian sailors from their frigate)

 

[sparky42]

Could Greece be going for 3 more locally built hulls?
https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...-greece-as-u-s-constellation-program-collapse

 

[Titus K]

Looks like NG is offering Sweden an FDI with a Giraffe 4A instead of the Seafire.
Also notice the Bofors 57mm stealth

View: https://x.com/xaviervav/status/2019425468886171699

 

[H_K]

Looks like NG is offering Sweden an FDI with a Giraffe 4A instead of the Seafire.
Also notice the Bofors 57mm stealth

Perhaps NG will offer for Saab to build the entire PSIM integrated mast module, similar to what they are doing for Finland's Pohjanmaa class?

That's roughly ~€100M per mast, including Giraffe 4A radar and the full Saab 9LV combat management system. Saab can also install their Ceros fire control, RBS-15 anti-ship missiles, SLWT torpedoes etc, so that would give Sweden a solid industrial share.

That would leave NG to focus on building the hull and fitting out systems. Some hull modules could even be farmed out to other Naval Group clients in Europe as part of their offsets... Greece is already building FDI modules, the Netherlands could join in (Orka offsets) and so could Denmark (if they also choose the FDI).

 

[Mallard]

Perhaps NG will offer for Saab to build the entire PSIM integrated mast module, similar to what they are doing for Finland's Pohjanmaa class?

That's roughly ~€100M per mast, including Giraffe 4A radar and the full Saab 9LV combat management system. Saab can also install their Ceros fire control, RBS-15 anti-ship missiles, SLWT torpedoes etc, so that would give Sweden a solid industrial share.

That would leave NG to focus on building the hull and fitting out systems. Some hull modules could even be farmed out to other Naval Group clients in Europe as part of their offsets... Greece is already building FDI modules, the Netherlands could join in (Orka offsets) and so could Denmark (if they also choose the FDI).

Still the VLS question, Sweden seemed dead set on Camm

 

[sparky42]

The second Greek FDI has started Sea Trials:
https://www.navaltoday.com/2026/02/06/hellenic-navys-second-fdi-frigate-kicks-off-first-sea-trials/

 

[Titus K]

The swedish configuration :

• 57mm Bofors main gun
• 40mm Bofors above the hangar
• Anti-Ship Missile : RBS-15
• Light Torpedo : Torped 47
• 4 VLS launcher with each : 8 Aster or 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER
• Setis 3.0 CMS (not a Saab CMS)

Nothing on the radar in the video but the image does show a Sea Giraffe 4A instead of the Seafire ...

If rapid delivery is truly a priority, I suspect the Seafire would be retained rather than replaced by the Saab option.

I could see a similar setup being offered to Denmark, maybe with NSM instead of RBS-15.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFAVjxANBHk

 

[zen]

Seems the CAMM and CAMM-ER packing is at the request of the Swedish Navy.

 

[Titus K]

Seems the CAMM and CAMM-ER packing is at the request of the Swedish Navy.

Yes they requested both Aster 30 (probably B1NT) and CAMM-ER