CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

wildcolonialboy -> CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/21/2019 2:24:11 PM)

Greetings

I was doing a little test scenario to see how a Type 23 frigate armed with CAMM missiles would cope with an attack by supersonic, sea-skimming Oniks missiles. Presumably it should do reasonably well. However when I started engaging the incoming, it showed a -50% target speed modifier for the CAMM, which pushed its PKK down to 20% to 30%, or even as low as 6% in some cases.

This seemed strange so I added in an Arleigh Burke with ESSM missiles, and the ESSM missiles only had a target speed modifier of -10%. This has to be a mistake, surely? The CAMM missile is highly manoeuvrable, it can't be five times worse than ESSM. It's also not as though CAMM is a particularly slow missile, it travels at Mach 3+, faster than ESSM.

Is this is a bug, can it be fixed?

[image]local://upfiles/57983/F111BC4BF1A048C0B8189F5CCF670D3D.jpg[/image]



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/21/2019 3:42:44 PM)

The -50% target speed modifier is in part due to the disparity in velocity between target and interceptor.



ARCNA442 -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/21/2019 4:38:26 PM)

CAMM's estimated speed of Mach 3+ is actually slower than ESSM's estimated speed of Mach 4+.

Remember, CAMM is a rather small weapon (100kg) that is much closer in size to RAM (90kg) than ESSM (280kg).



wildcolonialboy -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/23/2019 8:30:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442

CAMM's estimated speed of Mach 3+ is actually slower than ESSM's estimated speed of Mach 4+.

Remember, CAMM is a rather small weapon (100kg) that is much closer in size to RAM (90kg) than ESSM (280kg).


I accept that CAMM will not be as fast as a larger missile with a larger motor, but it is *indeed* a Mach 3 class weapon. That is what the reporting says everywhere that I read, including from the manufacturer. In fact, RAM is a 76kg weapon with consistently reported speed of Mach 2+. There is no reason that figure should be degraded for sea level because RAM never operates anywhere other than at sea level. Based on this, and CAMM's reported speed, it seems reasonable that CAMM's speed would be at least in the Mach 2+ zone.

The DB here has an intercept speed of Mach 1.75. Given CAMM was specifically designed with the supersonic interception mission in mind, I find the 20% intercept probability not to be credible. The DB has ESSM doing sea-level intercepts at Mach 2.21 (with 10% penalty against the 2.19 mach Onyx), Aster 15 doing sea level intercepts at Mach 1.95 (for a 15% penalty), so you would think it would "gracefully degrade" between Mach 2.2 and Mach 1.75, but a 10% penalty to a 50% penalty seems disproportionate.

CAMM was developed specifically with interception of supersonic, sea-skimming missiles in mind. I would not at all be surprised if the additional 10 kilograms weight over ASRAAM was additional weight/power added to the Roxel motor, which on a small, light missile does not take much at all to render a nice, substantive increase in thrust / weight ratio.

I would be keen to find out what the Mach 1.75 at sea level DB value is based on, so I can do some further research, perhaps I can bring it to the developers if I find out more.

Edit: Also please see results of my test below. It seems crazy that a 1970s missile like Sea Wolf has a higher final PH than CAMM. If this were the case, trust me, the British government would not be replacing Sea Wolf with CAMM. If CAMM was this much of a dog compared to Sea Wolf, they would simply upgrade Sea Wolf with an active seeker and a datalink to get those benefits.



wildcolonialboy -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/23/2019 8:52:18 PM)

Two issues with this. First is that it has been widely reported that it is a Mach 3 class missile, so the DB sea level interception speed value of Mach 1.75 is something that perplexes me. The Sea Ceptor was specifically developed with the supersonic, sea-skimming missile threat in mind. If CMANO DB values represented the reality, the Royal Navy's doctrine would have to be something like launch three to four CAMM missiles for every incoming supersonic sea-skimming missile.

It would mean the CAMM missile is basically garbage for the primary task for which navies are purchasing it. The MBDA description gives a good sense of the goal and philosophy behind the programme, "[these] enable the missile to rapidly intercept the most challenging and dangerous of threats including saturation attacks from precision guided munitions and manoeuvring high-speed missiles emerging late from low altitude and from multiple directions simultaneously".

I realise the manufacturer is going to say that, but somehow 20% interception values doesn't seem quite right for a missile that was developed from a munition designed from scratch for interception of highly manoeuvrable targets (fighter jets pulling 9g), and then further developed (with 10 kilograms added, I suspect to the Roxel rocket motor to give it additional 'umph' to get it that claimed Mach 3 sea-level speed) specifically to take on this target set. It has very quickly picked up sales, to Brazil and Chile, but also to New Zealand (which currently deploys Sea Sparrow on their ANZAC frigates, so choosing CAMM over ESSM suggests some degree of confidence in the product).

Also keep in mind that CAMM in its land-based iteration, FLAADs, is supposed to be a significant improvement on the 46kg, Mach 2.5 (at sea level) Rapier missile that it replaces. It doesn't at all seem outlandish to conclude that CAMM achieves at least Mach 2, and many logical reasons to believe it outperforms both Sea Wolf and Rapier.

Second, the Aster 15 with a sea level interception speed DB value of 1.95 renders a 15% penalty. Sea Wolf with sea level intercept speed of 1.81 mach incurs a 25% penalty. Going from 25% to 50% based on 0.06 slower mach speed seems quite drastic, is this based on a ratio of target speed to unit speed in the DB or have the mods made judgment calls about the speed penalty value and entered them individually for missiles?

Edit: Please see results of 'field trials' below



wildcolonialboy -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/23/2019 9:21:15 PM)

So I did a little test, ESSM Block II, a Sea Wolf missile basically from the 1970s and the CAMM, intercepting an Onyx SS-N-26 missile.

ESSM Block II (Speed Mach 2.21, speed penalty 10%): Final PH 70%
Sea Ceptor CAMM (Speed Mach 1.75, speed penalty 50%): Final PH 35%
Sea Wolf Block 1 (Speed Mach 1.81, speed penalty 25%): Final PH 40% (!!)

The 1970s missile Sea Wolf has a higher PH than CAMM? And the speed penalty doubles from mach 1.81 down to mach 1.75? This just doesn't make much sense to me.



Dimitris -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/24/2019 6:35:45 AM)

Hi,

Please give us some time to look into this.



wildcolonialboy -> RE: CAMM missile has incorrect target speed modifier (7/25/2019 8:51:44 PM)

Thanks, much appreciated! :) I know I'm just a bit too passionate about this because I am from England, but I'm certain CAMM would be more effective than the Sea Wolf and Rapier missiles it replaced.

I wondered whether you had awarded a lower sea-level speed to CAMM because the ASRAAM was a Mach 3+ missile, and the assumption was, "CAMM is basically an ASRAAM so we will modify those values as if an ASRAAM was being launched at sea-level, and the additional drag at that low-altitude". I would add a couple of points to this.

First, the ASRAAM has a declared range of 50 kilometers (26nm), CAMM has a declared range of 25 kilometers (13.4nm). If you drill into the literature, you can also find that it is often reported that ASRAAM actually has a peak speed of Mach 3.5 (has been called the fastest dogfighting missile in the world by the Indians and by MBDA).

Furthermore, CAMM saves some energy by the fact it is soft-launched, and it doesn't have to expend main motor energy positioning itself towards its target; the CAMM has an added 'turn-over pack' that has lateral thrusters to position it facing the correct direction before the main motor starts up. These things being in mind, if the difference in speed between ASRAAM Mach 3.5 and CAMM Mach 3 is the CAMM making up the speed differential between flying at 300 knots in the air, and being at 0 knots on the ground, that has a certain logic to it.

I'm not sure how long the ASRAAM/CAMM motor burns, but it is supposed to burn much longer than the 4 - 5 seconds of the AIM-9 missiles it originally competed against. It has a "dual-burn, high impulse" rocket motor designed to maintain thrust for as long as possible (and it is a very low-drag design). If the CAMM only has to make it half as far as the ASRAAM, that allows you to focus on applying all of that thrust to those circa 15nm.

Jane's also reported that the missile was a Mach 3 class weapon and a significant improvement over Rapier (I can't attach an image, but it's in a Jane's article called 'UK orders next generation air defence missile from MBDA' and it is available in the Wayback Machine). Overall, I think we can trust based on the available literature that it is indeed a Mach 3 class weapon.

Anyway, I will hold on and let you look into and investigate it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.703125