Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

MR? The ER supposedly goes >20km (80%) further than the standard CAMM. MR is larger than ER, which doesn't semantically make sense I know, but is nevertheless a fact. Increase of MR over ER is 122%.

View attachment 717880
I see that there is a discussion here about CAMM ER, i.e. FCM Future Common Missile. So maybe I'll write something about it. Well, the first information is that you should not get attached to the missile in the graphic. Even on this graphic it says in the lower left corner: "CAMM MR Image is for illustrative purposes only." And I take this information seriously. Well, when it was announced that such a missile would be built, information appeared that its final performance would still be the subject of talks between the Polish and British sides. This should be understood in such a way that only the initial performance was determined, the rest was still to be determined. And since the parameters of the missile were not yet determined at the time of publication of this graphic, it must also be true that the visualization of this missile is for illustrative purposes only.

For people who know the history of the development of Polish air defense programs, the CAMM MR description contains one very characteristic feature. Well, the description shows that CAMM MR is to have a range of 100 km or more. This parameter previously appeared in the Wisła program. What is Wisła? The Wisła/Vistula is the largest river in Poland, which lent its name to the medium-range air defense purchase program. Under it, Poland will acquire 8 Patriot batteries in two tranches. As part of the first tranche, two Patriot batteries were acquired, each battery containing two fire units. These batteries still have the old radar, but they also have the IBCS system. The Polish version of Patriot is slightly different from the generally available versions, because Polish communication solutions have been added to it, and the "command wigwams" have been moved to command containers. As part of the second tranche, another 6 batteries were ordered, this time with a new 360-degree radar made in GaN technology.

From the beginning, the Polish side assumed that Polish Patriot systems would use two types of missiles, a premium missile and a low-cost LCI missile. The PAC-3 MSE plays the role of a premium missile. The Polish requirement for a low-cost Patriot missile was a cost of USD 1 million and a range equal to or exceeding 100 km. There were also other requirements for this missile, related to its seeker or its extensive Polonization. Initially, SkyCeptor was supposed to meet these parameters. However, when it came to the details, it turned out that Americans "understand the word low-cost" differently than Poles and, according to media reports, SkyCeptor was to cost about 70-80% of the cost of PAC-3 MSE. That's why the program failed. At the same time, however, the British were very keen to sell CAMM and CAMM ER missiles to Poland. According to military journalists, at this stage it was proposed that if Poland joins the CAMM missile family, it will be possible to conduct joint R&D on the LCI missile sought by Poland. Therefore, I assume that FCM is in fact the LCI missile originally expected by Poland for the Wisła program.

Oh, it is known that, just as in the case of CAMM ER, the owner of the rights to the rocket engine is the Italian side, in the case of the CAMM MR rocket engine, the owner of the rights will be the Polish side. The Polish side has technological input in the form of ~230mm and ~300mm rocket engines. Therefore, the use and possibly further development of one of these structures seems quite probable. My favorite is the ~300mm caliber also because the PAC-3 MSE missile has a 305mm caliber, and ultimately the Polish side may seek the possibility of adding FCM to the Patriot system.

And one last piece of information. There is an opinion in Poland that the missile that our anti-aircraft forces liked the most at the market analysis stage was the Barak-8 missile, among other things due to its relatively large warhead. I also once read that the British Navy wanted their versions of CAMM missiles to have larger and heavier warheads. Ultimately, nothing came of it and "interoperability" and cost cutting won, but there were such ideas. And since both Poles and the British Navy like heavier warheads than those used in CAMM and CAMM ER missiles, in my opinion it can be assumed that the CAMM MR/FCM missile will have a heavier warhead than its smaller sibling.
 
Last edited:
Oh, it is known that, just as in the case of CAMM ER, the owner of the rights to the rocket engine is the Italian side, in the case of the CAMM MR rocket engine, the owner of the rights will be the Polish side. The Polish side has technological input in the form of ~230mm and ~300mm rocket engines. Therefore, the use and possibly further development of one of these structures seems quite probable. My favorite is the ~300mm caliber also because the PAC-3 MSE missile has a 305mm caliber, and ultimately the Polish side may seek the possibility of adding FCM to the Patriot system.
I think the PAC-3 MSE is actually 290mm, and 255mm for the CRI. PAAC-4 (aka David Sling) is 305mm at base.
 
I think the PAC-3 MSE is actually 290mm, and 255mm for the CRI. PAAC-4 (aka David Sling) is 305mm at base.
Yes you are right. I thought I once read that the caliber of the PAC-3 MSE was 12 inches, but now I checked again and it is actually 11.5 inches - 292mm. Interestingly, however, it turns out that the Mk. 41 can accommodate two SM-2 IIIB missiles. SM-2 IIIB are 13.5 inches - 343mm. So it seems that my idea about the possibility of putting two missiles with a caliber of about 300 mm into one container is still valid.
 
Yes you are right. I thought I once read that the caliber of the PAC-3 MSE was 12 inches, but now I checked again and it is actually 11.5 inches - 292mm. Interestingly, however, it turns out that the Mk. 41 can accommodate two SM-2 IIIB missiles. SM-2 IIIB are 13.5 inches - 343mm. So it seems that my idea about the possibility of putting two missiles with a caliber of about 300 mm into one container is still valid.
I think only Mk57s can dual-pack SM-2s. Mk41s can probably dual-pack ESSMs (not sure whether they actually have though), whereas Mk57s can quad-pack them.
 
I think only Mk57s can dual-pack SM-2s. Mk41s can probably dual-pack ESSMs (not sure whether they actually have though), whereas Mk57s can quad-pack them.
We distinguish between "can" and "is". Currently, there are "no" such dual-pack containers for the Mk. 41. But they can be. And they will be. If I remember correctly, MBDA UK is responsible for finalizing this topic - probably as part of arrangements with BAE Systems.

Even the illustrative visualization shows that two tubes with missiles can fit under one flap of the Mk. 41 launcher. General Marciniak - this is the head of Polish air-defense programs - clearly said that the Mk. 41 will carry containers, and each container will carry two CAMM MR missiles. These containers will have to be designed.



POLMISS-2_MBDA.jpg
 
I think only Mk57s can dual-pack SM-2s. Mk41s can probably dual-pack ESSMs (not sure whether they actually have though), whereas Mk57s can quad-pack them.

ESSM quad-packs in the form of the Mk 25 canister are the norm in the Mk 41. (I don't think there even is a single-round ESSM canister for the Mk 41.)


1714594858913.png


1714594898659.png

As mentioned a couple of times in this thread, there was a patent that shows a way to dual-pack a modified SM-2 MR (minus strakes and fins) into Mk 41.

As it stands right now, Mk 57 carries the same canisters as the MK 41, just with adapters. There are no known canisters specific to Mk 57.
 
Last edited:
Can't link it here. But unfortunately one of the UK supplied HMT/Asraam Frankensam systems has been hit and destroyed in Donetsk by a Russian Lancet. Definitely not a dummy system either. System was parked up with a damaged tyre and, given the time delay between detection and lancet strike (position of sun and shadows in the video) is likely to not have been manned at the time.
 
Can't link it here. But unfortunately one of the UK supplied HMT/Asraam Frankensam systems has been hit and destroyed in Donetsk by a Russian Lancet. Definitely not a dummy system either. System was parked up with a damaged tyre and, given the time delay between detection and lancet strike (position of sun and shadows in the video) is likely to not have been manned at the time.
How much electronics does that Supacat actually carry, though? A FLIR to point the ASRAAMs in the right direction?

So it's a relatively cheap loss?
 
How much electronics does that Supacat actually carry, though? A FLIR to point the ASRAAMs in the right direction?

So it's a relatively cheap loss?

The HMT600 was surplus from the Soothsayer programme
The Asraam are all Block V or lower so were going to be retired anyway
The EO/IR kit is surplus from the Mastiff Protected Eyes from the Talisman Mine Clearance system, now retired post Afghanistan
Surplus Tornado launcher rails.

So all surplus gear...apart from we don't know about the fire control system. God knows what that is....or how complex it is. Can't be big though...

The real cost is that there is only a handful of these made and its unlikely we'll make any more.
 
Last edited:
Below I am posting the translation of a Polish article about the agreement concluded half a year ago at the MSPO fair regarding cooperation in the development of the FCM missile.

"MBDA and PGZ concluded a cooperation agreement during MSPO 2023 in Kielce to develop a new, low-cost CAMM interceptor missile. The CAMM-MR missile will be designed for advanced land and sea air defense systems that combat threats at medium distances.

The letter of intent signed by representatives of PGZ and MBDA is a consequence of the consent expressed by the governments of Great Britain and Poland for development work on a future joint missile based on the CAMM family of anti-aircraft missiles as part of the 2030 Partnership - a strategic document signed by Great Britain and Poland.

The concept of developing CAMM-MR results from an agreement with the Polish Ministry of National Defense. The missile is intended to complement CAMM and CAMM-ER in the potential of the integrated air and missile defense system (IAMD), combining the Miecznik, Pilica+, Narew and Wisła programs.

Eric Béranger, president of MBDA, said: Joint work on a new missile is a historic event for our companies and the development of European systems for the defense of Europe. MBDA was established to support the cross-border development of missile systems in Europe, so we are proud to collaborate with PGZ and Poland on this important new project.

Poland's involvement in the future development of the CAMM missile family comes after the successful British-Italian cooperation, which resulted in the creation of CAMM-ER. Currently, MBDA is working with PGZ to expand the missile production potential in Poland, including under the Pilica+, Narew, Miecznik and Ottokar Brzoza programs, supported by the transfer of knowledge and technology from MBDA to the Polish defense industry. This cooperation provides Poland with significant military capabilities, offering good value for money and stimulating the domestic economy and creating high-skilled jobs.
"

Quote from: https://www.altair.com.pl/e-report/view?article_id=1430



In the tweets below we see pages 8 and 9 of the presentation, probably from the last Defence24 Days.

Page 8 is titled "New Technologies".

We see 4 categories of components of the CAMM ER missile. The first is: "radiolocation seeker", the second is: "missile engine", the third is: "final assembly and tests of missile", and the fourth is: "missile launcher - final assembly and tests".

In the "radiolocation seeker" category we read: "Serial production of selected components, assembly, tests of systems and ready-made tracking and guidance heads in an anechoic chamber."

In the "missile engine" category we read: "Serial production of missile engines with a carbon fiber composite body, high-energy solid missile fuel, test stands."

In the "final assembly and tests of missiles" category we read: "Serial production of complete missiles, final tests, specialized measurement equipment."

In the "missile launcher - final assembly and tests" category we read: "Integration with the chassis, installation of navigation, system communications, system tests of ready-made launchers including Up/Down link".

Page 9 is called "Main areas of ToT and ToK (Transfer of Technology, Transfer of Knowledge)".

We see three areas there, the first is: "radiolocation seeker", the second is: "missile engine", the third is: "warhead". The slide also shows that these three areas are "planned areas of technology acquisition and development by PGZ companies". (PGZ is Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa, a group of Polish arms companies owned by the Polish state.) From the slide and the description of this tweet it follows that the development versions of these three technologies will go to FCM, i.e. CAMM MR.

One more thing, the information contained in tweet no. 2 shows that, according to PGZ representatives, the development of the FCM missile is a 10-year horizon.
 
So all surplus gear...apart from we don't know about the fire control system. God knows what that is....or how complex it is. Can't be big though...
In theory - I'm not saying in practice, because I don't know - it could be some kind of combat management system from Poland.

The contract for the transfer of CAMM family missile technology to Poland was negotiated for quite a long time. At some point, it turned out - as claimed, among others, by MBDA representatives in the Polish media - that the expected level of Polonization exceeded the limits permitted by British regulations.

Then, Polish Prime Minister M. Morawiecki negotiated a special agreement with British Prime Minister T. May, which allowed for the transfer of technology at the level sought by Poland. Media information showed that the UK had apparently signed agreements of this type with only one, two or three countries, I don't remember the exact number now. I will only add that there could be a grain of truth in this, because Poland was negotiating this agreement with the UK at a time when the UK was negotiating Brexit with Brussels. At that time, Poland, as a member of the European Union, also tried to help Great Britain obtain the most favorable conditions for leaving the EU. It can therefore be said that Poland had a fairly good negotiating position towards the UK at that time. I assume that on the basis of this agreement, the defense industries of both countries can cooperate quite freely.

More than 2 decades ago, the Polish defense industry modernized the 9K33 Osa systems. There are videos showing that these systems, after modernization, fire without using the main radar, which may suggest that the function of the main radar was taken over by a passive head. (Description of changes made to Polish 9K33 by WZU. The description is in English: https://wzu.pl/sites/default/files/Upgrade_SA_8_anti_aircraft_missile_combat_vehicle.pdf . )

This modernized version of the Osa was later retrofitted with the Irys-T.

WIT_10_2016_osa.jpg


Ultimately, the Polish Army was not interested in purchasing Irys-T, but that is another story.

Another similar system of this class is Poprad, a system that uses Polish Grom and Piorun missiles. The video material shows a bit of the Poprad system's combat control system. The material is in English.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-2mDtZOjg


The third and probably the most comprehensive system is the Pilica system and its extension. The Pilica system may seem anachronistic at first glance, as it is based on Soviet 23mm guns. However, it so happens that Poland has been producing these cannons and using them in the army for decades. Therefore, it was decided to develop this structure. As a result of the development, a camera and automation system was added. Grom and/or Piorun rockets were also added. Moreover, one battery consists of 6 such systems, which, according to the assumptions, should be arranged in a hexagon around the protected facility. The system also has its own radar.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAMtLvRO7j0


Initially, it was an Israeli radar, but now, due to increased requirements, the system will be equipped with a Polish-made radar. The Pilica system was promoted to the name Pilica+ and, in addition to Grom and Piorun cannons and missiles, it is also equipped with CAMM missiles.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV6ccSrvnd4


CAMM has already been integrated with Polish systems, although as part of the Mała Narew program. OK, and here comes the difficult part. ;) What is the difference between Pilica+, Mała Narew and Narew, since they all use CAMM rockets? Simplifying it as much as possible, we can say that Pilica+ is a joint program of the VSHORAD and SHORAD systems, and Narew is half of what in Poland is sometimes called Wisło-Narew, i.e. a combination of the Wisła program, under which Poland acquires the Patriot system with Narew, i.e. CAMM ER missiles and Polish radars. The whole thing is to be connected via IBCS. Wisło-Narew is a combination of a SHORAD class system and an MRAD class system.

GB0BqIvWMAEtkDL


Mała Narew (small Narew) is a gap-filler. This is a prematurely ordered Narew, the purchases of which began in response to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. That is why, for example, CAMM missiles were contracted for it, which are ultimately intended for Pilica+, and not CAMM ER, which are ultimately intended for Narew, because CAMM ER were not yet available when Mała Narew was contracted.

In any case, assuming a certain similarity between CAMM and ASRAAM missiles, Polish experience with IR missiles and international agreement in the field of defense between Great Britain and Poland I would assume, that the combat control system in this particular Franken-SAM, might comes from Poland. Although whether this is true, I don't know that. This is just a hypothesis on my part.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there will be any Polish involvement in this I'm afraid. I think the Fire Control is far more likely to come from retired Tornado or Typhoon Tranche 1 that have been reduced to spares, ties in well with the launch rails. How that interfaces with the EO/IR providing direction of target I suspect is via some sort of lash up from MBDA and BAE. Poland has no experience with Asraam, Supacat and the EO/IR as a system so could offer little to no assistance.
 
Posted here for completeness...

New model of Land Precision Strike. It's now got a booster and wings, which means its going to go out to 150km+ (which I was sceptical of before)....but that fact that the booster clearly seperates from the main body means that soft launch of the main section, as a standalone, will still be possible from Ceptor cells...with the addition of wings it might reach to 100km...


View: https://twitter.com/JakOSpades/status/1802734590768935171/photo/1

View: https://imgur.com/lu3pvGJ


Zoomed in image from a second angle by @kqcke for you , clearly shows the size of the wings.

View: https://imgur.com/V3QG1sJ
 
This looks like an air intake.
View attachment 732165

I think you're right you know....fantastic spot...also explains the booster...

Which means its more like a Spear than long range Brimstone now...what range will that thing have??

Folding wing, folding fins on the booster, noticeable small increase of diameter after the seeker head (seeker head should be c178mm diameter)...if they're using the full canister length its about twice the length of Spear...(c3.5m by the looks of it).

Has LPS become a longer range Spear derivative than ASRAAM/CAMM/Brimstone mashup?

View: https://imgur.com/IoY77AX
 
Last edited:
I think you're right you know....fantastic spot...also explains the booster...
Now the look makes sense
Which means its more like a Spear than long range Brimstone now...what range will that thing have??
I mean Spear is a long range brimstone so it would be a longer ranged brimstone or long range thick spear.
Folding wing, folding fins on the booster, noticeable small increase of diameter after the seeker head (seeker head should be c178mm diameter)...if they're using the full canister length its about twice the length of Spear...(c3.5m by the looks of it).
The missile main body looks to be around ~200mm
 
So LPS fights against JFS-M

I'm not sure. They're both MBDA products. Even in MBDA's world I'm not sure they'd be that daft...(Smartglider as a concept does exist though). JFS-M I think will be more targeted at the PrSM range market I suspect, with LPS more at the GMLRS-ER+ range but with moving target ability. Which makes sense. No point trying to compete with GMLRS-ER as most have already chosen it for static targets, but at least try and get some of that MLRS market share....France will be France and develop their own GMLRS it appears...which on a European level is good.
 
I wonder what "based on Spear" actually means in practice? Maybe the engine and the fin actuators are the same, and possibly a similar electrical system?

It now kinda seems like quite a different weapon to LPS; it's now a small cruise missile with a small warhead?

I wonder what the cost is?
 
I wonder what "based on Spear" actually means in practice? Maybe the engine and the fin actuators are the same, and possibly a similar electrical system?

It now kinda seems like quite a different weapon to LPS; it's now a small cruise missile with a small warhead?

I wonder what the cost is?
Depends on how expensive the airframe is.

I mean, if you're using all the SPEAR internals (seeker, warhead, engine, autopilot and actuators), a new airframe with more fuel and longer wings is cheap to develop and potentially cheap to make if it's a composite structure.
 
I wonder what "based on Spear" actually means in practice? Maybe the engine and the fin actuators are the same, and possibly a similar electrical system?

Would have expected the full guidance package as well. Only things that you'd change are the missile body, fuel capacity and use a larger warhead (like the one for SpearGlide).

It now kinda seems like quite a different weapon to LPS; it's now a small cruise missile with a small warhead?

I wonder what the cost is?

This is my issue with it. It's a great idea. There's always been a lot of merit for a ground launched Spear....but it will not be cheap. Great for hitting SA-xx SAM systems/Radar/EW at 250km range.....but not for hitting tanks or artillery at 50km+. It will certainly be nowhere as cheap as the CAMM/Brimstone mashup that was originally proposed (which you could have delivered in the c£100k price bracket). Seems a very different concept than the original aim of a kind of Super-NLOS. Perhaps the Ukraine war has influenced thinking?

But even then I would have thought the thinking from Ukraine would have pointed to needing both....

I'm not sure small warheads are what's needed for artillery.

I think they'd be using the larger warhead proposed for SpearGlide on this (so c50kg, like SDBII). But it wouldn't be used to replace GMLRS-ER, more for dealing with high value relocatable assets like SAM systems.
 
Switchblade 600 or hero 120 is suitable job for anti-tank and artillery. They are 60km+

LPS is more suitable for striking logical and Radar, SAM, aircraft on ground, even tank, and other.

LPS I think it is larger and wide Spear type but picture looks like booster with spearglide maybe I'm wrong.

For me is one of LPS suit strike due range before they reach fire range or set attack to us, so fire distance before they on target on our side. So best destroy them with long range. 150km-300km cheap than PrSM plus 4 of them in one pod mrls.

PrSM for 300-500km plus 2 of them, in one pod mrls. Like bridge target and logical, HQ, aircraft airport, maybe naval ships.
 
I can imagine affordability comes into play. How small can one push this post-booster air-breathing concept? Can you take something the diameter of a Stinger and create affordable yet speedy loitering reconn drones that can dive towards a target? Maybe not big enough to take out a tank but could give unprotected targets (mortar team, etc.) a really bad day. Nobody would be able to defend themselves with a shotgun like they are doing with current miniature drones.
 
Switchblade 600 or hero 120 is suitable job for anti-tank and artillery. They are 60km+

They play a part...but they're also slow....I think you need a mix of slow/long endurance with fast/quick response.

LPS I think it is larger and wide Spear type but picture looks like booster with spearglide maybe I'm wrong.

There's definitely an intake there for a turbine engine, SpearGlide (from what we know) is exactly the same mold line as Spear to ease integration on aircraft. This is twice the length, and slightly larger diameter. Different wings as well.

For me is one of LPS suit strike due range before they reach fire range or set attack to us, so fire distance before they on target on our side. So best destroy them with long range. 150km-300km cheap than PrSM plus 4 of them in one pod mrls.

Absolutely, pushing back an AD umbrella works as well. But this proposal leaves a gap of cheaper, faster munitions to deal with moving targets at 30-40 km to 120km (30-40km should be covered by BGOAA with ground launched Brimstone, plus loitering munitions).

If it was me I'd want both....particularly as the UK seems to have gone all in on the M270A2 as its main fires platform...

CAMM/Brimstone Hybrid - so many other uses for this from naval and air platforms
Boosted 'Spear LR' - As above
GMLRS-ER - Replacing GMLRS
PrSM (the UK's ship has already sailed so no JFS-M) - An entirely new capability

That would be an incredible outcome for the UK. It would be nice to have a really cheap guided munition though, something like GLSDB. Have to say I'm not sure on the LRAE concept (FFLMM and Outrider UAS from GMLRS-ER).

Mind you I'm also an advocate of bringing back cluster munitions and AT2 from M270....but only for use against states that retain them themselves....so I am a bit of an outlier...

All in all, as this is the Taildog/SRAAM/ASRAAM thread I'm a bit sad they appear to have moved away from the CAMM/Brimstone hybrid as I think it had real potential, particularly given the whole Complex Weapons ethos....but Spear also embodies that.
 
Switchblade 600 or hero 120 is suitable job for anti-tank and artillery. They are 60km+

LPS is more suitable for striking logical and Radar, SAM, aircraft on ground, even tank, and other.

LPS I think it is larger and wide Spear type but picture looks like booster with spearglide maybe I'm wrong.

For me is one of LPS suit strike due range before they reach fire range or set attack to us, so fire distance before they on target on our side. So best destroy them with long range. 150km-300km cheap than PrSM plus 4 of them in one pod mrls.

PrSM for 300-500km plus 2 of them, in one pod mrls. Like bridge target and logical, HQ, aircraft airport, maybe naval ships.
Is 90kg really enough for a bridge? Seems to take a lot of hits at that weight. Maybe a larger/faster missile than GMLRS will make a difference though.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom