Jump to content

Talk:CAMM (missile family)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've just got back from Portsmouth Navy Days 2010, and picked up an MBDA pamphlet on CAMM. Since national military topics become flame bait so easily, I'm just putting the data in the comments section. I am summarising, and removing more abstract comments, such as "high rate of fire" (compared to what?)

"CAMM is the Next Generation, Single Tier, All-Weather Air Defence System. This common solution will meet the air defence needs of future land, sea, and air operations. The system is being developed for the UK MOD as the principal air defence system for its Frigates and Deployed Land Forces.

- Time frame for availability for sea and land requirements 2015 - 2020. - Compatible with any 2D or 3D surveillance sencor for targeting. - 360' coverage in all engagement sectors. - Wide target set including small naval surface craft; air targets with high speed, rapid evasive manoeuvers, low signatures, and advanced countermeasures; simpler threats attempting saturation attacks. - Integration is simple for existing platforms. - All-weather Active RF seeker. - Compact two-way data link. - 3rd-party targeting. - Soft Vertical Launch technology. - No periodic weapon system maintenance required. - Weight: 99 kg, Length: 3.2 m, Diameter: 166 mm, Range: In excess of 25 km. Speed: Supersonic.

CAMM-Maritime. Quadpacked in SYLVER and MK41/51 launchers. For smaller ships, a simpler modular quad-pack launcher, occupying the same space as a single Seawolf canister, is available. The soft vertical launch reduces system mass and eases installation. Similarly, the command & control system is designed to enable rapid integration with both new and existing ships. CAMM-M does not require tracking radar and instead uses ship target indication data provided by its surveillance radar. (So the Seawolf directors would be removed.) CAMM-M will replace the RNs VL seawolf, to provide greater capability for a reduced cost.

CAMM-Land. Also soft vertical launch. Flexible architecture that enables integration with a range of configurations to provide a Networked-Enabled Capability. Target information from the wider network allows CAMM-L to engage targets that are non line-of-site from the local launchers or sensors.

CAMM-Air. The CAMM missile is based on ASRAAM with a range of performance-enhancing modifications."

My comments: (1) I think it is implicit that CAMM-M is also Network Enabled. (2) It would be possible to replace the 32 VL-Seawolf on the type-23's with 128 CAMM! (Or 64, in half the space.) It fits the space, and no hot launch gas to worry about. I'm a bit worried I am speculating there, but I can see no alternative. However, as I say, this sort of thread turns into flame wars with ridiculous ease. (3) Comparable missiles: - Other quadpack missiles. (Size comparable.) - Other 25 km range land / sea missiles. (Role comparable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.135.124 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in the past, before the rapier missile, there was a missile known as tiger-cat, the land version of sea-cat, does the british call the land version of sea-ceptor - tiger-ceptor ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.121.208.133 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Ceptor

[edit]

Can someone create a redirect fromm Sea Ceptor to here, as that seems to be the name they're giving to the naval version of this (ref). 90.202.164.239 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be a different system looking at the range quoted.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of today, the head of this article says they're the same system. 90.202.164.239 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See here [1] it quotes "protect an area of around 500 sq miles" which is quite a bit more than the 24 km for ASSRAM on the main page. Looking at the artists image, going off the crane alongside the launcher, the scale looks, more in the size of a Harpoon / Tomahawk. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An area of 500sq miles is a circle with a radius of 12.6 miles. Lots of people have got confused by that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.131.166.196 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MBDA press release "At the heart of both systems (SEA CEPTOR for the Royal Navy and the future CEPTOR-based land system for the British Army) is MBDA’s Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM)." [2] 90.202.164.239 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sea Ceptor Range

[edit]

Range is up to 30km, system was developed to engage targets at ranges of between 1 and 18km, but system has engagement range of up to 30km and can cover 500sqm of territory/sea. or 22.35x22.35sqm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.86.178 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

This is only the range that has been officially released and the true range is actually still clasified.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-ceptor-missile-system/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air variant

[edit]

'The modularity of CAMM would lend itself to a family of missiles like the Vympel R-27/AA-10 "Alamo"...' Meaning unclear.

HMS Argyll will be the first

[edit]

http://www.adsadvance.co.uk/hms-argyll-upkeep-marks-start-of-type-23-life-extension.html

Phd8511 (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CAMM (missile family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on CAMM (missile family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on CAMM (missile family). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the VLS launchers that CAMM missiles are launched from?

[edit]

What is the name of the VLS launchers that CAMM missiles are launched from? Also, is it possible to quad-pack CAMMs in these launchers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could CAMM missiles be modified so they could be used as anti-ship missiles?

[edit]

Would it be possible to make an anti-ship variant of the CAMM missile? Royal Navy surface ships currently lack a decent anti-ship missile and it's going to be some time before we get Type 26s with LRASM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do have an anti-surface function but in no-way could you call it an anti-ship missile. They are talking fast attack boats & the like (& there are cheaper alternatives for this). The missile & its warhead are way too small & they lack all the fancy defences & targeting most AShM are capable of (terrain following, sea skimming, gps etc).144.139.103.173 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I don't often check for replies, hence my late reply. I appreciate CAMM couldn't be considered a proper anti-ship missile like LRASM, NSM, RBS-15 or Tomahawk Block Va, but CAMM and especially CAMM-ER would be longer ranged than Sea Venom that Wildcats can carry. From what I've read Sea Venom is able to take out craft up to corvette size/1,000 tonnes, although whether a Wildcat could get close enough to such a ship to fire Sea Venom in the first place is questionable I suppose.

What's the altitude of CAMM?

[edit]

Does anyone know the altitude CAMM can reach? The Wikipedia article for the Aster missile here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aster_(missile_family) says that Aster 15 (which is very similar to CAMM in terms of speed and range) has an altitude of 13km. I'd expect CAMM would be in that ballpark, but does anyone know the exact figure? Also what's the point of a SAM when aircraft can fly above its max altitude? I don't get it.

Gas generator

[edit]

This article refers to a gas generator to eject the missiles from their launcher before the rocket motor is ignited. It links to a wikipedia article 'Gas Generator', but that article is generic and does not refer to gas generators for this application. Can we either add more information to this article about the specific gas generator used, or add a section to the gas generator article describing how they are used in this application? If we do the former, there will be little point retaining this link. Thanks contributors. FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAMM's integration with the Sylver vertical launching system.

[edit]

Following a revert early today from @Mark83 (thanks again Mark and sorry about this) I thought it wise to inquire about this issue on a public forum.

The issue in question is the current status of CAMM's integration with the Sylver VLS. Whilst clearing up another chunk of excess citations yesterday and going through a lot of MBDA's own work, I ended up noticing something. There are only two mentions of Sylver compatibility alongside the Mark 41.

1: https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/ MBDA's page for Sea Ceptor

2: Available at: https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm/ MBDA's datasheet PDF for CAMM. MBDA's datasheets can't be cited directly because of their PDF format and my ignorance of Wikipedia for finding an alternate way of citing them (this was also what happen with @Mark83's revision earlier, I meant to cite the Sea Ceptor datasheet but couldn't so simply retained citation for the Sea Ceptor web page (1) ).

These both simply refer to the ability to use Sylver. However the Sea Ceptor data sheet (1) doesn't mention Sylver, it only mentions the Mark 41 and ExLS. Combined with the fact that we have yet to see imagery / footage of CAMM on Sylver like we have for the Mark 41 (https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/mbda-lockheed-martin-co-operation-achieves-first-missile-launch-from-a-mk-41-launcher-using-exls/) I get the impression that whilst possible, formal integration on Sylver hasn't been performed just yet as it has been with ExLS and by extension the Mark 41.

In hindsight I probably shouldn't have jumped to putting my concern in the article straight away, especially when I couldn't cite the require source material directly and arguably could have phrased the point better. instead I really should have come here first. But with the preamble out the way... Am I overanalysing this situation? I personally feel that the status of things like Sylver integration are worth mentioning in articles, but also understand that the evidence of integration being done or not in this case is not exactly solid. So, do we perhaps leave the status of Sylver integration as it is in the article right now "Similarly, the French Sylver vertical launching system can be used", at least until more reliable evidence can be procured on the matter. Or do we need to agree on a way to phrase that sentence to highlight the potential ambiguity of Sylver's integration status? Sir JackMarr (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CAMM_(missile_family)&oldid=1259740317"