I'd take the commonality argument a step further and say that the PAF should probably consider the CAMM-ER to build-out its Hi-MADS layer. Though MBDA is promoting the CAMM-ER as a replacement for the Spada 2000, I think retaining the Spada 2000 is a good idea as its Lo-MADS and SARH-based. Adding the CAMM-ER would diversify our coverage types with an ARH-based system.
The advantage of the CAMM-ER is that it would fit within our existing IADS as-is. So, we wouldn't need any special illumination radars (like RAC-3D), the new gap-filler radars should suffice (
@kursed).
The real concern would be the cost of the CAMM-ER missiles themselves. I expect they'll be a fair bit costlier than the Aspide. However, that need not be an upfront cost; the PAF can build the missile inventory through the long-term, especially since it is a new product. Even if each CAMM-ER costs $1M per unit, the PAF could start with 100 units (enough for ten 8-cell batteries and 20 spares), but add 20-50 missiles a year whenever there's money for it. I suspect the PN is taking a similar approach.
The unfortunate part here is that if the PN (and potentially PAF) are moving towards incremental missile purchases from Europe, then why didn't we develop our own SAM? If the concern was keeping a production line warm for 15-20 years, then annual batch purchases were the perfect solution.
The one thing we can hope for now is that if we bundle the PAF and PN requirements, we can push MBDA to help us develop our own medium-range SAM. We wouldn't be able to export it (as MBDA wouldn't want any competitors), but we can at least save on hard currency through the long-term.
@JamD