Sea Ceptor - CAMM Sea Wolf replacement

WatcherZero said:
Looks like CAMM-MR may be dual packed!
(foreground CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR missiles and on the background a CAMM-MR launching from Mk41 silo in what looks to be the bottom right corner with a shadow over the top left corner)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699351841996222920
View: https://twitter.com/JakOSpades/status/1699351841996222920
Click to expand...
Saw this the other day elsewhere. It's exactly what I was hoping for. I've argued for a while that going forward our investment in Aster-30 should be directed to developing its innate potential in the anti-ballistic and anti-hypersonic roles and conserving them for use against that very-high/very-fast target set while using something more cost-effective and ideally more space-efficient for general fleet defence against (relatively) lower and slower targets. It looks like the CAMM family now gives us a full set of options for the latter.

That narrow top section suggests potential for an ESSM block II style upgrade at some point. CAMM already has an active seeker of course (the biggest change in ESSM blkII) but bigger is always better with active seekers to burn through target ECM.

Seems the sensible thing would be to develop a scalable GaNi AESA seeker that could also be used for the next version of Meteor too now that we're not going ahead with JNAAM. More girth up front would allow for the electronics section to be rearranged to take up less length and fit a longer motor with a longer (time wise) burn profile. Especially if they can get some of that resonantly mixed explosive off BAE to make the warhead more compact too.

Bah, I'm getting way too ahead. I just hope HMG actually buy the thing in the first place!
 
I'm not sure there's any intention for the RN to buy CAMM-MR, at least now. The dual canister is for Mk 41, which the T45s no longer have room for with the CAMM mushroom farm going in. T26 and possibly T31/32 get Mk41 but not the sensors for that sort of engagement. And keeping a mixed load out of ASTER-30 and CAMM-MR in the T45 replacement means either rehosting ASTER or continuing with two different types of VLS indefinitely.

In summary, Sylver+ASTER has really complicated the RN's ship outfitting choices.
 
I would love to see a CAMM/RAM hybrid for some reason. Could work really well as RAM replacement for future ships. Things like the german F-126 would get even more RCS reduction and If ExLS is used one could have 6 missiles more. But all would have to be in the front after the MK.41. maybe aft on the hanger one could put a gun based weapon system, laser or other missile system.
 
Now that we know that Type 31 and Type 83 will have the Mk41 cells capable of firing CAMM-MR, is there potential for CAMM-MR to grow into an Aster-30 Block 1 or PAC-3CRI equivalent? Basically a low cost ballistic interceptor to complement SM-6 or SM-3 or an equivalent.
 
Titus K said:
I simply assumed it was Sylver since it shows Aster. But I think you're right.
Forget what I said :D

Well if it's a sign that Aster will be integrated into Mk41 that's an even better news honestly !
Click to expand...
No worries!

It's definitely good news if MBDA expects to integrate the Aster-30. Perhaps the Aquila as well in the future, given that Germany and Italy are involved, both of whom are Mk41 users?
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
CAMM, CAMM-ER, CAMM-MR, Aster 30 NG in the cluster of cells, so what's that on the other end of the stand?
Click to expand...

Its Aster 30 Block 1 NT, this isn't available yet...the RN is updating its Aster 30 to Aster 30 Block 1. I think NT will need a new build order.

On the other side is the Mistral 3 MANPADS, Fulgore MANPADS, Enforcer C-UAS missile and Dragonfire DEW.
 
timmymagic said:
Its Aster 30 Block 1 NT, this isn't available yet...the RN is updating its Aster 30 to Aster 30 Block 1. I think NT will need a new build order.

On the other side is the Mistral 3 MANPADS, Fulgore MANPADS, Enforcer C-UAS missile and Dragonfire DEW.
Click to expand...
The Aster-30 Block 1NT is the missile in the Mk41 alongside the CAMM-ER. The thing that DWG is referring to is a VL MICA-NG.
 
Just messing with the images using a measurement tool gave me a diameter for the central section of the CAMM-MR model as being 238mm (assuming the upper section is the same diameter as a standard CAMM at 166mm).
 
Reuben James said:
Just messing with the images using a measurement tool gave me a diameter for the central section of the CAMM-MR model as being 238mm (assuming the upper section is the same diameter as a standard CAMM at 166mm).
Click to expand...
The photo seems to show that the CAMM-MR booster is oval, not circular. Which finally explains why they are packing 2 in a VLS cell.
 
Hobbes said:
The photo seems to show that the CAMM-MR booster is oval, not circular. Which finally explains why they are packing 2 in a VLS cell.
Click to expand...
I can't see that, and twin packing works whether it's oval or not. Are you sure?
 
Reuben James said:
Just messing with the images using a measurement tool gave me a diameter for the central section of the CAMM-MR model as being 238mm (assuming the upper section is the same diameter as a standard CAMM at 166mm).
Click to expand...
So even with twin packing we still haven't reached the same booster diameter as quad-packed ESSM? That doesn't sound quite right, it looks like the booster is about half of the cell which would have it at 250-260mm.
 
SailorBoy said:
So even with twin packing we still haven't reached the same booster diameter as quad-packed ESSM? That doesn't sound quite right, it looks like the booster is about half of the cell which would have it at 250-260mm.
Click to expand...
It was just a quick bit of line drawing, and the perspective of the image could definitely be throwing it off a little. That said, there's also the need to house the folded strakes and their hinges inside the canister, which would result in the diameter being a little less than half the canister.

It could also be that I was wrong in my initial assumption that the upper portion of the mock-up is the same diameter as a standard CAMM (166mm).
 
Hobbes said:
The photo seems to show that the CAMM-MR booster is oval, not circular. Which finally explains why they are packing 2 in a VLS cell.
Click to expand...
I think that's just a trick of perspective; shapes that should be square appear elongated. I suspect a fisheye lens is at work. From a geometric consideration, in a 21-inch square, you can fit
  • One 21-inch missile
  • Two 12.3-inch missiles, or
  • Four 10.5-inch missiles
That doesn't fully take allowance of separation, wall thickness, etc., but I think it's somewhat indicative. We certainly know a 10-inch diameter missile (ESSM) can be quad-packed, and that a 21-inch missile is the largest that can be accomodated singly, which likely bounds the twin-pack missile maximum envelope as between 11.7 and 12.3 inches diameter.

The actual missile may be somewhat smaller, but presumably not so much smaller that a quad-pack becomes feasible.
 
SailorBoy said:
I can't see that, and twin packing works whether it's oval or not. Are you sure?
Click to expand...
Look at the cell, with the two holes indicated for the missiles. Those holes extend beyond half the length of the cell.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom