• 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
1,067
Reaction score
191

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,957
Reaction score
2,201
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
246
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
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
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
29
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
14,009
Reaction score
2,432
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
2,367
Reaction score
506
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
199
Reaction score
285
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
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
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
14,009
Reaction score
2,432
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
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
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
64
Reaction score
103
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
246
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
2,370
Reaction score
1,089
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
790
Reaction score
246
What is Starfire? Do you mean Starstreak?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
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
2,370
Reaction score
1,089
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
64
Reaction score
103
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
2,370
Reaction score
1,089
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
790
Reaction score
246
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
2,370
Reaction score
1,089
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.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
984
Reaction score
880
Stumbled across this while looking something else up on the MBDA site - looks like another CAMM-ER sale, and another CAMM compatible combat system - Albatros NG:


From the Albatross NG name and CAMM-ER I'd presume it's going onto an Italian-designed platform. Too much to hope it's the Constellation Class ;)
(And it's not the 1st anymore, in fact the release is a month old)
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
Stumbled across this while looking something else up on the MBDA site - looks like another CAMM-ER sale, and another CAMM compatible combat system - Albatros NG:


From the Albatross NG name and CAMM-ER I'd presume it's going onto an Italian-designed platform. Too much to hope it's the Constellation Class ;)
(And it's not the 1st anymore, in fact the release is a month old)

Definitely not for the USN. Naval News thinks maybe for Brazil, for their Tamandaré Class MEKO frigates, which were announced as armed with CAMM. But this says the missile will be in service by 2024, when the Tamandaré Class isn't due until 2025, so maybe not?
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
984
Reaction score
880
From the Albatross NG name and CAMM-ER I'd presume it's going onto an Italian-designed platform. Too much to hope it's the Constellation Class ;)
(And it's not the 1st anymore, in fact the release is a month old)

Definitely not for the USN. Naval News thinks maybe for Brazil, for their Tamandaré Class MEKO frigates, which were announced as armed with CAMM. But this says the missile will be in service by 2024, when the Tamandaré Class isn't due until 2025, so maybe not?
I was definitely joking about the USN. The MBDA release says the contract "paves the way to further acquisitions by the same customer", and you would have to ask whether any other Brazilian ship is a likely platform for CAMM-ER.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
From the Albatross NG name and CAMM-ER I'd presume it's going onto an Italian-designed platform. Too much to hope it's the Constellation Class ;)
(And it's not the 1st anymore, in fact the release is a month old)

Definitely not for the USN. Naval News thinks maybe for Brazil, for their Tamandaré Class MEKO frigates, which were announced as armed with CAMM. But this says the missile will be in service by 2024, when the Tamandaré Class isn't due until 2025, so maybe not?
I was definitely joking about the USN. The MBDA release says the contract "paves the way to further acquisitions by the same customer", and you would have to ask whether any other Brazilian ship is a likely platform for CAMM-ER.

Sorry, sometimes I'm humor-impaired.

Three of the Niterois are supposedly going to be modernized. But even the youngest hulls would be nearly 50 years old! I haven't seen anything about a modernization of the surviving Type 22s, but it might make more sense.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
984
Reaction score
880


Three of the Niterois are supposedly going to be modernized. But even the youngest hulls would be nearly 50 years old! I haven't seen anything about a modernization of the surviving Type 22s, but it might make more sense.
I initially looked at the Brazilian fleet list and ruled out both the Niterois and Type 22s for lack of an easy VLS installation. But I'm starting to wonder if Albatross NG might not be a case of slotting CAMM-ER into an Aspide launcher. CAMM-ER without its VLS capsule is lighter than Aspide - 160kg vs 220kg, but a little bit longer - 4.00m vs 3.72m (about a foot). If the missile is suitable for that form of mounting* then it would be an attractive upgrade for all the Aspide, and potentially Sea Sparrow, mountings out there.

* CAMM was meant to have an airborne variant, so the basic missile is theoretically capable of hanging horizontally, though there's a difference between dropping off a fighter rail and flying horizontally off a shipboard one.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
I think it's unlikely to use the Aspide launcher, if only because the cells aren't long enough. Retrofitting depends on what kind of launcher is required. If it fits in the 3-cell ExLS, for example, you can probably scab launchers on the side of the helicopter hangar on most of these ships and end up with at least 24 rounds, which is ample. If you do need to cut down through a deck, the opening would be very small.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
2,111
Well the press release significantly hints that it builds on the Albatros system with minimal changes, which suggests integration of CAAM-ER with the NA-30 fire-control system and RTN-20X and RTN-30X series trackers.
MBDA already offer a range of launchers so it wouldn't be a big deal to make a slightly larger box. It should be relatively cheap to bolt on a new launcher and do some software reprogramming. Easier than stripping out all the electronics and cutting holes for VLS cannisters.
This could be a very attractive upgrade option if it really is a plug-and-play retrofit.

16 navies use Albatros, but it is a fairly old system, most of the frigates and corvettes using it were all built in the 1980s, excepting the last batch of Turkish Barabaros-class frigates. So I guess whoever has brought this has intentions to keep their frigates going for another decade or so. My bet would be placed on Turkey (their ships have Mk 41 so no need to worry about legacy Sea Sparrow boxes).
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
103


Three of the Niterois are supposedly going to be modernized. But even the youngest hulls would be nearly 50 years old! I haven't seen anything about a modernization of the surviving Type 22s, but it might make more sense.
I initially looked at the Brazilian fleet list and ruled out both the Niterois and Type 22s for lack of an easy VLS installation. But I'm starting to wonder if Albatross NG might not be a case of slotting CAMM-ER into an Aspide launcher. CAMM-ER without its VLS capsule is lighter than Aspide - 160kg vs 220kg, but a little bit longer - 4.00m vs 3.72m (about a foot). If the missile is suitable for that form of mounting* then it would be an attractive upgrade for all the Aspide, and potentially Sea Sparrow, mountings out there.

* CAMM was meant to have an airborne variant, so the basic missile is theoretically capable of hanging horizontally, though there's a difference between dropping off a fighter rail and flying horizontally off a shipboard one.
CAMM's air borne variant is to all intents and purposes ASRAAM CSP. This is new production ASRAAM for the UK (and anyone else who wants to buy it) using a new IR seeker, replacement of obsolescent components and other tech inserts from CAMM. The UK MoD realised that new production ASRAAM would be as cheap as a re-life of their existing stockpile of ASRAAM (which aren't that old either) and would also lower the unit cost of CAMM M and L.

What's interesting to date is that MBDA haven't pushed an active radar homing ASRAAM CSP out there for customers, or for that matter an air launched CAMM-ER. Active and IR ASRAAM CSP paired together would make an interesting combination, likely to be a lot cheaper than AMRAAM (and certainly so than Meteor). Not sure if CAMM-ER would be suitable for conformal carry on anything though....it's probably too long.

I actually think that the announced Albatross NG order is for a land system not a ship....got a feeling its for a Gulf customer who has seen the recent Iranian drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities and want something new to counter it...I'm thinking Kuwait...All the candidates for a ship based system either have ships that are too small, too old and near replacement or who have selected the MICA-VL recently.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
2,079
I actually think that the announced Albatross NG order is for a land system not a ship...

The press release announcement starts, "Albatros NG is a new CAMM-ER based air defence system for naval applications" and talks several places about navies and ships. Also, the Albatross name was always applied to the naval version of Aspide, not the land versions.
 

Similar threads

Top