Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
914
Reaction score
491
European missile manufacturer MBDA is starting to flesh out its plans for a common family of anti-air weapons, being supported by research funding from the UK Defense Ministry.

The family, known as the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM), is aimed at meeting tri-service requirements from around 2018. In the land environment CAMM is intended to provide a successor to the Rapier point-defense missile system, while in the naval context it will provide a follow-on to the Sea Wolf missile.

For air platforms CAMM would effectively provide an upgrade for the Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile. The presently envisaged CAMM configuration uses an ASRAAM airframe.

The British Defense Ministry is funding study and technology demonstrator work in support of the CAMM concept.
 

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
8
The definitive Common Anti-Air Modular Missile may not be ASRAAM based. According to Jane’s Missiles & Rockets, between 2002 and 2005, a series of demonstration firings was conducted using ASRAAM-based hardware to prove the planned soft-launch scheme. The missile retained the existing ASRAAM mounting points, and was fitted into a container-launcher of square cross-section.

The demonstrator rounds were about 3 m long, and retained the 166 mm diameter of the ASRAAM. Total weight was about 100 kg, slightly more than the 87 kg of the ASRAAM. The container-launcher was about 3.25 m long and weighed about 45 kg.

At the DSEI exhibition in London during September, MBDA showed a control section incorporating a series of four twin-nozzle thrusters mounted just aft of the fins fired to steer the round through a post-launch turnover manoeuvre.

Carry trials of a fully-active RF seeker are due to begin in 2008, the magazine reported.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
1,502
I predicted the development of this years ago, only strengthened when I saw the MBDA trial MICA-VLS. It seemed so damned obvious and clearly I was not alone on that one, cue smug mode!

Interesting to hear its a different missile body, if the same diameter.

RF seeker would seem likely to be of an existing type, perhaps the same as used in MICA and Meteor?
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
896
Reaction score
116
Here is a link to the May 2009 "Warship Technology" article which seems to be the definitive source to date:

http://content.yudu.com/A17o11/WTMay09/resources/31.htm

The graphics seem to indicate folding fins, allowing "quad packing" in a standard MK 41 or Sylver VLS cell, although the very first graphic seems to depict the retrofitting of Type 23 with 10(?) widely spaced quad packed cells. It's unclear if the intended VLS system is some sort of bespoke arrangement based on the current Seawolf VL?

The graphic shows a more standard 4 cell arrangement aboard the BMT Venator concept, as shown in the below Youtube Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m81ede8b9g
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
914
Reaction score
491
RP1 said:
Link to a paper on the Soft Vertical Launch system proposed for CAMM:

You forgot the TM after Soft Vertical Launch (TM)...... ;D
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
914
Reaction score
491
Has the development of CAMM required any new developments elsewhere, could it have been developed sooner?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,998
Reaction score
6,624
Hmmm. Given the wide range of vessels, big and small, that the system is meant to be deployed on, perhaps something more like the old Hawker Siddeley Dynamics SHIELD would be more effective, both cost and technology wise? Just my opinion.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,089
Reaction score
287

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
600
It might be possible to produce a cheaper missile, but there's a pretty linear relationship between cost and capability here. You don't want to refit your warships with 1970s technology.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,068
Reaction score
455
So this thing is what, a stretched ASRAAM with VLS capability? Sounds logical to have a longer body for a bigger motor and the flip-over jets.

And if it's capable of bolting onto the standard aircraft launch rails, that offers increased air-launch range or energy-manoeuvre capability, and maybe even the ability to flip 180 degrees and attack a target astern... hmm...
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
755
Reaction score
310
harrier said:
In many ways it's analogous to the Tor SA-15/SA-N-9 missile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system - cold VL, local area defence (more than just point defence), but 30 years later!

A fair bit cleverer with onboard active radar guidance and variable data link inputs. General method is for search radar to locate target, missile launches and heads towards target, target position updates are sent to missile via data link until it gets within range to switch on the onboard radar and go for active terminal homing. Clever bit is that the search radar isn't holding track of either missile or target but simply giving position updates whilst carrying on scouring the sky.
 

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
600
Interesting. It suggests that it'd be fairly easy to create a longer-range version by adding a booster.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
264
The latest information on the Type 26 is that they will have twenty four launchers in front of the bridge and ahead of the helo hanger. Will this be twenty four individual missiles or are they twenty four quad packs as show on the Venerator video?

Regards
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,972
Reaction score
2,550
IIRC, the last Type 26 model we saw had 24 missiles each in those two locations, for a total of 48 CAMM. That's a pretty generous loadout -- four times thast would be extremely unlikely.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,392
Reaction score
1,131
The CAMM launchers on the current T26 design are all single tube launchers- not larger VLS cells for which there is only space (likely reserved rather than fitted) for 16. An odd feature, in my opinion, is not making the design slightly larger and rearranging things to accommodate an additional 16 VLS cells instead of the 48 CAMM specific launch tubes.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
JFC Fuller said:
The CAMM launchers on the current T26 design are all single tube launchers- not larger VLS cells for which there is only space (likely reserved rather than fitted) for 16. An odd feature, in my opinion, is not making the design slightly larger and rearranging things to accommodate an additional 16 VLS cells instead of the 48 CAMM specific launch tubes.

The ratio of 48 CAMM to 16 MK 41/48/57 VLS is extremely generous. CAMM is a soft launch missile. So its vertical launchers are just tubes holding the missile making them very simple and light. VLS however can support hot launch missiles with extremely powerful boosters (like SM2). So its launchers have massive 180 degree exhaust vents. This is why CAMM is so attractive because the launcher is extremely lightweight by comparison.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
264
What is the planned missile load for the modernised T23?

Regards
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,344
Reaction score
2,943
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/common-anti-air-modular-missile/
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
264
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
4,972
Reaction score
2,550
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
587
Reaction score
36
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
14,721
Reaction score
3,680
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
2,655
Reaction score
1,006
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
230
Reaction score
377
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
4,972
Reaction score
2,550
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
14,721
Reaction score
3,680
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
4,972
Reaction score
2,550
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
122
Reaction score
244
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
790
Reaction score
264
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
2,790
Reaction score
1,502
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.
 

Similar threads

Top