• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,058
Reaction score
150

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,531
Reaction score
1,508
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/common-anti-air-modular-missile/
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
761
Reaction score
194
Has anyone heard what the missile load on the T23's will be when refitted? I know that effectively they could be fitted at a ratio of 4 to 1 Sea Wolves, but I somehow can't see the MOD stretching to a 128 missiles per ship? Is the VLS well on the T23's deep enough to take any other weapon?

Regards.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,491
Well, that belatedly answers JohnR's question from last year. Looks like a 1:1 replacement of Sea Wolf with Sea Ceptor in the Type 23s.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
586
Reaction score
26
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
RAM shares IR sensor elements with Stinger IIRC, but CAMM is a ASRAAM modified for use as SAM with active radar seeker. Fire control by platform has huge commonality with PAAMS (~Aster).

------------------
Personal opinion
I think CAMM makes little sense because it's too short-ranged to justify the expense of an active radar seeker.
Even the extended range version is of little good - the biggest improvement over Aster 15 is the more compact VLS.

My hopes are for AMRAAM-ER and for naval purposes the quad-packed ESSM Blk II.
Maybe the latter even gets a AESA antenna as some of the newest Russian and Japanese A2A missiles designs.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,708
lastdingo said:
RAM shares IR sensor elements with Stinger IIRC, but CAMM is a ASRAAM modified for use as SAM with active radar seeker. Fire control by platform has huge commonality with PAAMS (~Aster).

------------------
Personal opinion
I think CAMM makes little sense because it's too short-ranged to justify the expense of an active radar seeker.
Even the extended range version is of little good - the biggest improvement over Aster 15 is the more compact VLS.

My hopes are for AMRAAM-ER and for naval purposes the quad-packed ESSM Blk II.
Maybe the latter even gets a AESA antenna as some of the newest Russian and Japanese A2A missiles designs.

Sounds like a relatively expensive, less capable, TOR. On the other hand, while active radar sounds expensive, are they ALL expensive? Big difference between a bleeding edge AESA seeker (like the one Japan and UK are looking at for Meteor) and active seeker on LM's Miniature Hit-to-Kill.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,262
Reaction score
269
Seeker's SE would involve the target set. One thing to design something that is Low-Cost and targeted towards CRAM and small UAS, while another that has to have the capability to go after fixed and rotary winged aircraft with ECM. The Army has had a few low-cost seeker programs, even looking at phased array seeker options..
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
180
Reaction score
229
Something I was wondering about CAMM. Mk41 vls can take a 21 inch diameter missile, or four 10 inch diameter missiles (ESSM); could it take a 3x3 "nonapack" of nine 6.5 inch diameter standard CAMMs? Not the ERs, since they are 7.5 inches with the booster. Assuming soft launch/hot launch can be resolved.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,491
Something I was wondering about CAMM. Mk41 vls can take a 21 inch diameter missile, or four 10 inch diameter missiles (ESSM); could it take a 3x3 "nonapack" of nine 6.5 inch diameter standard CAMMs? Not the ERs, since they are 7.5 inches with the booster. Assuming soft launch/hot launch can be resolved.

Well, the launch issue is solved, as seen by ExLS, which hosts four CAMM in a single Mk 41 VLS cell via a Munitions Adaptor. Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.


 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
1,708
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,491
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.

Wings definitely fold, and there isn't much spare room around the sides of the missile, based on the renderings I see here. I suspect it's just that the original application was a quadpack canister for the Type 23 retrofit, and that same quadpack is a bit undersized to fit a Mk 41 cell.
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
42
Reaction score
59
Why not nine? Hard to know without access to detials, but the CAMM canister seems a bit bigger than you might think based on the size of the missile.

Maybe no folding wings? Cold-launch probably adds to it too.

Wings definitely fold. Here's a CAMM next to an encapsuled CAMM-ER (you can clearly see where the fins fold line is on the CAMM), second image is a cutaway of a CAMM canister with annotation, again with fold visible (and there's isn't much space in the canister), third image is a CAMM leaving its launch canister which shows the scale off quite well (also demonstates why ExLS or other expensive VL setups aren't necessary for CAMM as you could literally plug it in and prop it up with a wooden frame and it would work..).

Have to wonder if ExLS is even a live product anymore as its been around for 10+ years with zero sales and no full testing and integration campaigns on ships. I believe CAMM is the only payload to have even been trialled. At one point it looked like standalone ExLS would be the default launching 'frame' for CAMM. But the recent pic of the RNZN ANZAC Class with 'Mushroom Farm' has to call that into question. If I was LM I'd see if I could sell ExLS lock, stock and barrel to MBDA for a fee to try and recoup some money,any money.

uLqzosF.jpg


4X9CvUt.jpg


OrTE19K.jpg
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
761
Reaction score
194
How difficult would it be to fit CAMM (I refuse to use that stupid name) to the QE aircraft carriers.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
879
I rather think CAMM opens up a whole potential raft of possible future iterations.

When taken with the possible options for Tempest, the Complex Weapons modular approach could produce potential savings and scalability. More rapid to ramp up production than the heavy industry approach of conventional artillery.

So options apparently include.
A larger bore missile to carry Brimstone seeker and warhead.
Or an alternative optical seeker (optical here is a vague, not precise term bar) that may be EO/IR or even SAL designated.
These seem to use a GMLRS 178mm diameter rocket as the basis.

We can see a larger bore ASRAAM option for Tempest, presumably to leverage combined IR/ARH seeker. This surely would step into ASTER-15 territory?

In looking at Tempest options a smaller, narrower missile opens up a derivative SAM, perhaps even as a Starfire successor.
It would certainly assist soldiers in the field, if the MANPAD was one that didn't actually need to be pointed at the target, but just propped up vertically. Leaving any optical systems that might have to be slewed onto target as a much lighter and more manoeuvrable system. Soft/Cold Launch does make this a possible future development.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
761
Reaction score
194
What is Starfire? Do you mean Starstreak?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,477
Reaction score
1,491
A larger bore missile to carry Brimstone seeker and warhead.
MBDA was pushing quad-packed vertically-launched Spear 3 a while ago, which sort of fills that role for seaborne platforms at least. It seems to have gone quiet, though. There's a pic of the proposal here https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/ground-and-sea-launched-spear-3/

Interesting. I was just thinking that Sea Venom is also about the right size for quad-packing into something like Ex-LS.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
879
A larger bore missile to carry Brimstone seeker and warhead.
MBDA was pushing quad-packed vertically-launched Spear 3 a while ago, which sort of fills that role for seaborne platforms at least. It seems to have gone quiet, though. There's a pic of the proposal here https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/ground-and-sea-launched-spear-3/
Yes but SPEAR III is a mini-cruise missile. While a large bore CAMM variant is going to be faster.
Horses for courses really.
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
42
Reaction score
59
How difficult would it be to fit CAMM (I refuse to use that stupid name) to the QE aircraft carriers.
Incredibly easily. The Combat Management System and main engagement radar (Artisan Type 997) have already had Sea Ceptor integrated with them on T23. The cold launched method also makes emplacing them a whole lot easier than traditional 'hot' VLS. You'd need to do some simple software work regarding the initial trajectory to ensure a launched missile climbed over the islands and antenna if launched over those spots. But thats fairly straightforward (it has been done for T23 and the ANZAC's and will be for T26 ). It would be a very straightforward job whilst in a refit to add 2 x12 cell VL blocks.

I would have thought the best place would be in the area behind the port front quarter Phalanx and at the stern starboard quarter. The cells are designed to be angled outwards slightly so that a missile that had a failure drops straight in the sea, rather than on deck. Those locations probably make the most sense as they would provide all round coverage, limiting missile flight over the deck, avoid area where personnel will be in the most numbers, keep the elevators clear and are as distant as possible from parked aircraft, aircraft movements and the islands.

pvpQCSE.jpg
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
879
Strictly FLAADS is sensor agnostic, as long as a digital feed on the target is presented to the missile. It can fly.
Hence why Ceptor was easy to integrate into Patriot.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
761
Reaction score
194
Thanks for that Timmy, you confirmed what my little amateur brain thought.

Zen, I assume FLAADS means Future Light Anti Aircraft Defence System? Also what is meant by sensor agnostic?

In addition why were the QE's fitted with Artisan/T-997 and not SAMPSON, Cavour and I assume Trieste?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
879
Zen, I assume FLAADS means Future Light Anti Aircraft Defence System? Also what is meant by sensor agnostic?

In addition why were the QE's fitted with Artisan/T-997 and not SAMPSON, Cavour and I assume Trieste?
So 1. Yes that's FLAADS. Which took a lot of PAAMS and ported it into an open form of code.
2. In this context and to my understanding, the inputs being digital packets are run through FLAADS as software. No reliance on specific hardware.
As long as the radar can deliver through it's own processing that data, then the system can engage.
In theory this means that you could even manually input that data, though probably it's more theory than achievable reality.

As for no Sampson, that's a cost saving.
 

Similar threads

Top