donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is this really supported now? If CAMM can be handled via Link16 or anything "already existing networks", it is a great sales point. I read somewhere that T26 gas 2 up/down link antennas for CAMM. In other words, T26 is not using its link16 system to guide CAMM. As my comment here is totally just a speculation, do anybody know about the truth?
Yep CAMM works like that out the box. There is no dedicated control radar, instead it accepts data from a network of distributed systems. It doesn't use link 16, it's uses a new system called the common data link which requires a small black box to be fitted to vehicle's, it can be seen on the land ceptor images clearly.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:CEC, and "distributed lethality concept" based on it, if applicable to CAMM, will be very interesting aspects. Virtually, CV's AAW can be done by 1 CMS on CVF or T45, and 2 SSS/AO near (a few km) and 4 OPV/MHCs far (~15km), all equipped with CAMM canisters. This will dramatically reduce the need for AAW defense of CVTF.
It is however distinctly different to CEC.
CEC aims to fuse raw data from many sources into one large battle space picture.
The common data link more or less just sends coordinates to the missile from distributed systems. It's a cheaper way of reaching a similar effect.
It does reduce the need for CAMM on the carrier's, or a 'guard ship''. If it was ever felt the layered defence we have needs another layer it would be feasible to place CAMM and a black box on a nearby auxiliary and have that controlled by the carrier or crowsnest or other distributed systems.
That is the main benifit to CAMM, it works around the comon data link, and active radar guidance, removing the need for a dedicated fire control radar and instead relying on distributed systems for its data.
The performance of the missile is nothing special, it's systems are. (cold launch is pretty neet too)