Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (
link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.
I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)
Thanks for that. Now I have even more questions, of course...
One of the first is HTH I managed to never see that on the CAMM wiki page before I have read that info several dozen times at least over the last several years. Not sure if someone ended up doing a page edit and added or removed it, or perhaps I could not see it because my brain was not capable of processing it. Whatever...
However, having looked at the links it does raise a fewer further questions, as well as a thought or two (yes, yes, I know, I know, me thinking is always dangerous...).
From the link, it seems like the CAMM traveled 60 km in trials, which is potentially quite different from the launched missile having a range of 60 km. As suggested, if a missile was fired along a ballistic trajectory, it could easily continue to travel for some time after powered flight ended due to fuel exhaustion Being able to ensure that a missile launched on such a trajectory accomplished anything actually useful is another matter entirely. My own personal take is that such info along with claimed ranges is akin to the effective and maximum ranges sometimes listed for guns. Sure, a WWII-era M1 Garand chambered in .30-06 might be able to fire an M2 ball round out to ~3,100 m the actual, effective range of such a rifle and cartridge combination would still normally only be out to ~450 m for things to be accurately engaged.
Other thoughts, starting with a question. I would be interested in find out what, if any, differences there are between CAMM missiles intended for use/launch by GBAD, and the Sea Ceptor naval versions of CAMM. Firstly noting that the trials back in 2015 appear to have been launches from land-based platforms and not from aboard a ship, was the missile which traveled 60 km the same design as the ones now used for Sea Ceptor? Are the CAMM missiles effectively interchangeable, so that a CAMM cannister could be loaded into a land-based launcher or a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm? If they are indeed interchangeable, that could simplify logistical support since two services could be resupplied via the same pipeline.
Going off that, would it be worth the NZ Army looking at adopting Sky Sabre to provide the NZDF with a air defence capability apart from/beyond what only the two frigates can now provide? If the missiles already now in inventory could also be used from land-based platforms, it would seem a relatively safe and easy path towards the NZDF having an air defence capability again.
Lastly, my thoughts on loading Sea Ceptor into Mk 41 VLS... honestly my thoughts are that it really depends on what the situation is. If the plan from the outset was to just use Sea Ceptor, that IMO would be both a bad idea and a wasteful one. OTOH, if the idea is more that NZ can fill Mk 41 VLS with Sea Ceptor and will do so if that is really the best options available, then the situation is different. An empty VLS cell in/during a conflict can be very problematic. Having something like Sea Ceptor available in the inventory could see some loaded simply because that is what is available or can be easily brought to port to replenish a RNZN frigate so that it at least has something it could launch from what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.
Lastly, comparing missile ranges is quite problematic since we just do not have access to actual range results tested to identical standards. Having said that, I do tend to give some credence to manufacturer's published ranges, at least for many US/NATO/allied munitions, simply because the published information usually has a caveat that the range is
in excess of NN, so the actual performance could be greater than claimed.
Lastly I also tend to lump missile performance claims together, so if MBDA is claiming a range of 25+ km for Sea Ceptor, and a 40+ km range for CAMM-ER, I am inclined to go along with MBDA that CAMM-ER is longer-legged, because the data used to compare the two versions is coming from the same source and likely of the same quality and to the same standard.
