Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

whatismoo said:
Would be pretty neat if they figured out how to stick them in something without needing to elevate the launcher. Like Tor without the rotating turret...
Click to expand...
That would require a rather tall vehicle, as the CAMM itself is 3.2 meters long, so the launch canister is probably about 3.5 meters long. Not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it would be very practical.
 
olek_z17 said:
That would require a rather tall vehicle, as the CAMM itself is 3.2 meters long, so the launch canister is probably about 3.5 meters long. Not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it would be very practical.
Click to expand...
AIM-132 and 9M331 are both 2.9m long AFAIK?
 
SailorBoy said:
That might be possible with CAMM, probably not with ASRAAM.
How deep is the Ajax turret basket, I wonder, and is Giraffe 1X good enough to cue CAMM?
Click to expand...
Ajax is probably the wrong hull due to how tall modern vehicles are due to underbody protection requirements, but there aren't many options for the UK, I suppose.
 
whatismoo said:
AIM-132 and 9M331 are both 2.9m long AFAIK?
Click to expand...
CAMM is 3.2 meters though, and considering that CAMM-ER's launch container is 0.2 meters longer than the missile itself, I suspect the same to be the case for the CAMM, so around 3.4 meters. Which is quite tall, a bit too tall I'd say.

zen said:
One of the reasons I think a development of a short range version CAMM-SR is viable is to get mobile VL SAM system for fire-on-the-move capability.
Click to expand...
Not sure if that would be a good idea tbh. I mean, missiles like that are certainly needed, something like the SkyKnight for example. But basing such a missile on the CAMM would make it quite expensive because of ARH.
 
olek_z17 said:
CAMM is 3.2 meters though, and considering that CAMM-ER's launch container is 0.2 meters longer than the missile itself, I suspect the same to be the case for the CAMM, so around 3.4 meters. Which is quite tall, a bit too tall I'd say.


Not sure if that would be a good idea tbh. I mean, missiles like that are certainly needed, something like the SkyKnight for example. But basing such a missile on the CAMM would make it quite expensive because of ARH.
Click to expand...
Ideally I would want dual mode ARH and IIR, tbh.

Regarding CAMM vs VL-SL-ASRAAM, I think the IIR is fine, especially if you have a datalink. I'm thinking about something more capable than LMM but much more maneuverable than iLauncher for brigade level organic SAM coverage.
 
whatismoo said:
Ideally I would want dual mode ARH and IIR, tbh.

Regarding CAMM vs VL-SL-ASRAAM, I think the IIR is fine, especially if you have a datalink. I'm thinking about something more capable than LMM but much more maneuverable than iLauncher for brigade level organic SAM coverage.
Click to expand...
Combined ARH and IIR would make it prohibitively expensive though. I think that either command guidance or SALH would be optimal for cost effectiveness, maybe with an IR (not IIR though, again for cost reasons) seeker for FnF in the terminal phase, so that you could guide such a missile in the direction of the target and then "let it go" once the seeker locks onto it.
And I believe that such a missile could be developed from the LMM, which could be as simple as adding a booster to it to extend the range.
 
olek_z17 said:
And I believe that such a missile could be developed from the LMM, which could be as simple as adding a booster to it to extend the range.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't even need a booster. Just the proposed single stage rocket motor. As soon as you remove the shoulder/tripod launch capability and restrict it to RWS as a minimum you can get rid of the kick motor.
 
olek_z17 said:
Combined ARH and IIR would make it prohibitively expensive though. I think that either command guidance or SALH would be optimal for cost effectiveness, maybe with an IR (not IIR though, again for cost reasons) seeker for FnF in the terminal phase, so that you could guide such a missile in the direction of the target and then "let it go" once the seeker locks onto it.
Click to expand...
SAL is limited by the number of pointing lasers onboard ship. Fortunately they're not anywhere near as large as the SPG-62 radars, but they're still a limit on the amount of the control channels.

Also, what's the effective pointing range of a laser target designator? 10km?
 
Scott Kenny said:
SAL is limited by the number of pointing lasers onboard ship. Fortunately they're not anywhere near as large as the SPG-62 radars, but they're still a limit on the amount of the control channels.

Also, what's the effective pointing range of a laser target designator? 10km?
Click to expand...
My mistake, I meant SARH. You're right in that laser guidance doesn't make much sense here as it limits the amount of targets a system can engage at once.
 
olek_z17 said:
Not sure if that would be a good idea tbh. I mean, missiles like that are certainly needed, something like the SkyKnight for example. But basing such a missile on the CAMM would make it quite expensive because of ARH.
Click to expand...
Maybe this would be a better basis for a tactical SHORAD system?
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/dsei-202...eveloped-answers-to-drone-and-missile-threats
For higher speed and value targets a second effector is under development, the Starhammer. This is designed to cope with high-speed cruise missiles, EDR On-Line understanding that the company also considers ballistic missiles as possible targets.
Click to expand...
The Starhammer is also tube-launched, it is fitted with a radar seeker, can reach a speed of around Mach 2, and has a range of 20 km and an envelope of 10 km in altitude. Its take-off mass is around 90 kg, and its length is estimated at around 3 metres. The missile is at the final prototype status, and should therefore enter production soon, the development path being similar to that of the Skyhammer.
Click to expand...
Cambridge Aerospace is a UK company that seems to have raised huge quantities of private investment on the quiet, and only really announced their existence at DSEI this week. The company's main innovation seems to be a really cheap active radar seeker.
 
olek_z17 said:
Combined ARH and IIR would make it prohibitively expensive though. I think that either command guidance or SALH would be optimal for cost effectiveness, maybe with an IR (not IIR though, again for cost reasons) seeker for FnF in the terminal phase, so that you could guide such a missile in the direction of the target and then "let it go" once the seeker locks onto it.
And I believe that such a missile could be developed from the LMM, which could be as simple as adding a booster to it to extend the range.
Click to expand...
The Tamir IIR seems pretty cheap, and CAMM/ASRAAM isn't that expensive as missiles go...

There's a minimum viable capability for certain threats.
 
whatismoo said:
The Tamir IIR seems pretty cheap, and CAMM/ASRAAM isn't that expensive as missiles go...

There's a minimum viable capability for certain threats.
Click to expand...
From what I can find online about it, Starhammer seems to be a conscious effort to create a UK equivalent of Tamir, but using the radar seeker that Cambridge Aerospace had already developed for Skyhammer, their previous loitering air defence drone.
Hopefully that also means it has a smaller stored footprint than SL-ASRAAM, so that it can be used as a sort of battlefield Iron Dome against loitering munitions. I wonder if they could also work against GMLRS-type rockets?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Semi-active guidance limits the amount of targets. Regardless of whether it's radar or laser.
Click to expand...
Yes, but SARH allows for more targets to be engaged at once, especially with a good AESA radar that can "light up" more targets. And I think that this combined with SARH being cheaper is optimal for frontline VSHORAD.
whatismoo said:
The Tamir IIR seems pretty cheap, and CAMM/ASRAAM isn't that expensive as missiles go...
Click to expand...
One of the main reasons behind Tamir's low price is that it's produced in rather large numbers. As for the ASRAAM (because I haven't seen many CAMM price estimates), it's not expensive for its category (WVR A2A missiles), but I think that frontline VSHORAD missiles should be cheaper because the threats they're meant to counter are usually cheaper, especially now. So something up to 100 000 USD would be nice, preferably lower.
 
olek_z17 said:
Interesting, it seems MBDA wants to integrate the ASRAAM with the Rapier launchers, as well as upgrade the Raven system to be able to carry 4 missiles:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1966980507456909580
View: https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1966980507456909580
Click to expand...

I suppose that since the UK retired its' Rapier missile system just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that there are large numbers of Rapiers available in storage (The British army purchased a total of 124 systems) to convert into ASRAAM launchers?
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
I suppose that since the UK retired its' Rapier missile system just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine that there are large numbers of Rapiers available (The British army purchased a total 124 systems) to convert into ASRAAM launchers?
Click to expand...

Nope:

The UK's Rapier surface to air missile systems could've been sent to Ukraine. The British government scrapped them. https://share.google/cktn8ZirJuZCgrUqz
 
NMaude said:
The fuckwit who ordered their disposal should be publicly hauled over the coals and be kicked out of HM's government with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Welcome to UK munitions policy since about 1996, when the Major Govt added the rule that they have to compare scrapping costs to storage costs and not account for military utility.
 
whatismoo said:
If memory serves that is the ballpark for IIR APKWS /K-LOGIR, both of which are pretty limited systems in this role compared to AIM-132.
Click to expand...
That's why the dual mode APKWS is a mistake imo - they started with a cheap SALH missile, and are slowly turning it into a death star. I think that the Martlet is a good example of what a relatively cheap VSHORAD missile should look like.
 
whatismoo said:
Welcome to UK munitions policy since about 1996, when the Major Govt added the rule that they have to compare scrapping costs to storage costs and not account for military utility.
Click to expand...

That idiotic policy needs to be reversed and I'd like to see the fool who ordered the scrapping of those Rapier units pilloried by the British press.
 
Ben Wallace Secretary of Defence from 2019 to 2023....
 
olek_z17 said:
That's why the dual mode APKWS is a mistake imo - they started with a cheap SALH missile, and are slowly turning it into a death star. I think that the Martlet is a good example of what a relatively cheap VSHORAD missile should look like.
Click to expand...
IIR isn't a death star, and director saturation is a huge problem for SHORAD in an era of cheap mass munitions!
 
Phoenix_jz said:
As far as future prospects for its deployment go, it has been mentioned that there are studies for integrating Albatros NG into the follow-on PPX (i.e. ships other than the first hull already laid down or the second ship that will start construction this month), but it seems unlikely it will go ahead - apparently considerable modification is necessary to fit the minimum armament (12 silos), or otherwise the sacrifice of the 76mm gun position. Given the role of the PPX, there isn't really much of an argument in favor of this.
Click to expand...

Update on this - RID 11/25 reports that the concept for follow-on PPX to mount Albatros NG have been shelved.
 
timmymagic said:
By all accounts UK MoD looked at the cost of re-lifing their existing Asraam stockpile and found that it wasn't going to be much cheaper than new production that would also remove obsolescence. The CAMM hot production line has certainly helped there. The opportunity to get a new ITAR free seeker was probably too good to miss. Apart from that its a fairly limited upgrade, no 2 way datalink for example, which would have been a big advantage. Block VI is still the most capable WVR missile around, hopefully a 2 way link will come later...seems a little odd as CAMM has the CDL.
Click to expand...
does the ASRAAM get datalink? even 1 way is enough
 
Hamez_boi said:
does the ASRAAM get datalink?
Click to expand...

The original ASRAAM had inertial guidance, but definitely no datalink. I've seen a couple of people suggest that ASRAAM Block 6 might have datalink on account of CAMM having it, but as far as I can tell that is purely speculation with no compelling evidence behind it. So the odds are that it does not have data link.

Does anyone know of a full list of what changed in ASRAAM Block 6? Obviously there was the widely reported new non-ITAR seeker, but was there anything else?
 
This is interesting....apparently France's Naval Group is developing, or at least exploring (its not entirely clear) a rival to Standalone ExLS for the French FDI bid for Sweden's Lulea Class....specifically to avoid the use of the US made ExLS but still to fire CAMM which Sweden has adopted for the Visby Class.

Seems they've also been stung by criticism recently about their main warship offering only having 16 Aster missiles, which following combat in the Red Sea, is now blindingly obviously too few for modern warfare....even with the beefed up Hellenic Navy FDI they're limited to 32 Aster cells.

MICA-VL's couldn't be used for a similar role as its hot launch and its packing volume is not great in comparison to CAMM.

but.... given that the UK is also bidding for the Swedish contract with Babcocks A140, and that the French seem to think this is critical for the bid....I'm not sure why the UK would allow Naval Group to do such a thing. MBDA UK owns all the CAMM IP....and UK Gov has a say...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999500647503126950
View: https://x.com/FauteuilColbert/status/1999500647503126950


https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/defe...plus-de-16-aster-soit-64-missiles-antiaeriens
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom