Akeron Missile, yay or nay?

[ArmyRick]

Watch this video if you could please.

Whats your opinions of this system? Yay or nay? I mean like it or don't like it (If Canada were hypothetically to purchase it, it won't be until 2045-2055 time frame given our procurement). Just tell me if you like it. @Kirkhill I know you will rpobably post a gazillion links and brochures, so be it. @KevinB @FJAG Lets hear it guys.

 

[ArmyRick]

@Jarnhamar @markppcli You getting in on this?

 

[FJAG]

Very interesting and, like all systems, my first question is: what is the per round cost?

Leaving that aside, there are a number of really good points about this.

1) the launch signature seems to be quite small which makes it more viable for front area employment even in the guided mode.

2) I really like third party designation. I'm a fan of anti-armour units/detachments where there is a forward observer/targeteer of some type with its own sensor/designator UAVs and a hidden launch platform - preferably with multiple ready rounds. Being able to have the observer find and call in the target, having the missile launch from cover (preferably with the launcher being able to change position at that point) and then having the missile in flight given a designated target that then changes to fire and forget mode, is IMHO a very desirable TTP for these systems

3) the multi targeting function means that the same missile could be on an IFV in a fire and forget defensive mode or a tank hunting mode

4) the dismount capability also provides for front line defensive use. It's not my preferred usage (see 2 above) but its god to have the option.

5) the 5 km range is adequate but I'd like to see more to provide a wider launcher deployment band for 2) above. I could see that type of system reach out much further from the FLOT providing a much longer period during which an attacking/manoeuvring force can be degraded

6) the wire control option is a good option to operate through EW

I'm not sure how good working with French industry is these days. I'd like a domestic manufacturing capability which I doubt they'll agree to. OTOH our stocks would be relatively low to make domestic manufacture a viable option anyway.

It strikes me procurement ought not to be a major issue. It's the type of system that could probably be justified and purchased through a UOR process for specific operational missions such as eFP with an adequate system maintenance and management plan. I think the rapid change in development and the cost element makes these types of systems ideal for limited life cycles. i.e. buy a given quantity of missile x as stock for 3 to 4 years and fire them down in training. Replace with a new stock of a Mark II or different missile once again for a 3 to 4 year window and fire them off in training. Essentially You continuously replenish and renew stocks trading up capabilities each time. To buy missile x for a twenty year life cycle simply doesn't make sense. But that all begs the question of war stocks size and cost and the inability to guarantee supply in the event of the big one.

We desperately need a different procurement model.

 

[markppcli]

Watch this video if you could please.

Whats your opinions of this system? Yay or nay? I mean like it or don't like it (If Canada were hypothetically to purchase it, it won't be until 2045-2055 time frame given our procurement). Just tell me if you like it. @Kirkhill I know you will rpobably post a gazillion links and brochures, so be it. @KevinB @FJAG Lets hear it guys.

Has a lot of the things I liked about Spike, with some more networked options which is always very cool. Cost, accuracy, and weight would likely be the defining attributes.

 

[ArmyRick]

Very interesting and, like all systems, my first question is: what is the per round cost?

Leaving that aside, there are a number of really good points about this.

1) the launch signature seems to be quite small which makes it more viable for front area employment even in the guided mode.

2) I really like third party designation. I'm a fan of anti-armour units/detachments where there is a forward observer/targeteer of some type with its own sensor/designator UAVs and a hidden launch platform - preferably with multiple ready rounds. Being able to have the observer find and call in the target, having the missile launch from cover (preferably with the launcher being able to change position at that point) and then having the missile in flight given a designated target that then changes to fire and forget mode, is IMHO a very desirable TTP for these systems

3) the multi targeting function means that the same missile could be on an IFV in a fire and forget defensive mode or a tank hunting mode

4) the dismount capability also provides for front line defensive use. It's not my preferred usage (see 2 above) but its god to have the option.

5) the 5 km range is adequate but I'd like to see more to provide a wider launcher deployment band for 2) above. I could see that type of system reach out much further from the FLOT providing a much longer period during which an attacking/manoeuvring force can be degraded

6) the wire control option is a good option to operate through EW

I'm not sure how good working with French industry is these days. I'd like a domestic manufacturing capability which I doubt they'll agree to. OTOH our stocks would be relatively low to make domestic manufacture a viable option anyway.

It strikes me procurement ought not to be a major issue. It's the type of system that could probably be justified and purchased through a UOR process for specific operational missions such as eFP with an adequate system maintenance and management plan. I think the rapid change in development and the cost element makes these types of systems ideal for limited life cycles. i.e. buy a given quantity of missile x as stock for 3 to 4 years and fire them down in training. Replace with a new stock of a Mark II or different missile once again for a 3 to 4 year window and fire them off in training. Essentially You continuously replenish and renew stocks trading up capabilities each time. To buy missile x for a twenty year life cycle simply doesn't make sense. But that all begs the question of war stocks size and cost and the inability to guarantee supply in the event of the big one.

We desperately need a different procurement model.

You are correct. Our procurement is a non-working bureaucratic nightmare.

 

[OldSolduer]

You are correct. Our procurement is a non-working bureaucratic nightmare.

You’re correct in this assessment- it only works for itself - a true self licking ice cream cone.

 

[Kirkhill]

Watch this video if you could please.

Whats your opinions of this system? Yay or nay? I mean like it or don't like it (If Canada were hypothetically to purchase it, it won't be until 2045-2055 time frame given our procurement). Just tell me if you like it. @Kirkhill I know you will rpobably post a gazillion links and brochures, so be it. @KevinB @FJAG Lets hear it guys.

So as not to disappoint.

Akeron MP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason I post my references is that I know nothing.

Range looks good at 5 km. Diameter looks good at 140mm. Tandem HEAT warhead looks good. Guidance options look good. Weight isn't bad at 15kg in the tube, without launcher and ancillaries.

As FJAG says the next issue is cost.

On the other hand if Ukraine has taught anything it is that a lot of anything is better than a little of the best. If SAAB has been contracted to pickup the pace and start delivering up to 400,000 AT systems a year and if the same logic is being applied to all other effective ordnance out there then all the original price projections are going out the window. The output is doubling every year.

Saab's 'huge ramp up' in anti-tank weapon, ammo production targets 400,000 units a year - Breaking Defense

“I would say that maybe in the last quarter we started seeing some effects specifically from the tragic war in Ukraine,” said Saab CEO Micael Johansson.

breakingdefense.com

With increased production event the costs of Javelin, Spike and Excalibur will drop. And will drop moreso if production is transferred to Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, Taiwan and South Korea.

The big issue for Canada will not be the unit cost but whether or not it buys lots of units. Akeron, Javelin or Spike, NLAW, AT4 or M72, Stinger, APKWS, Martlet or Starstreak.

And speaking of which, has anybody put a stop order on the destruction of the CRV7s in Dundurn?

 

[ArmyRick]

So as not to disappoint.

Akeron MP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The reason I post my references is that I know nothing.

Range looks good at 5 km. Diameter looks good at 140mm. Tandem HEAT warhead looks good. Guidance options look good. Weight isn't bad at 15kg in the tube, without launcher and ancillaries.

As FJAG says the next issue is cost.

On the other hand if Ukraine has taught anything it is that a lot of anything is better than a little of the best. If SAAB has been contracted to pickup the pace and start delivering up to 400,000 AT systems a year and if the same logic is being applied to all other effective ordnance out there then all the original price projections are going out the window. The output is doubling every year.

Saab's 'huge ramp up' in anti-tank weapon, ammo production targets 400,000 units a year - Breaking Defense

“I would say that maybe in the last quarter we started seeing some effects specifically from the tragic war in Ukraine,” said Saab CEO Micael Johansson.

breakingdefense.com

With increased production event the costs of Javelin, Spike and Excalibur will drop. And will drop moreso if production is transferred to Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, Taiwan and South Korea.

The big issue for Canada will not be the unit cost but whether or not it buys lots of units. Akeron, Javelin or Spike, NLAW, AT4 or M72, Stinger, APKWS, Martlet or Starstreak.

And speaking of which, has anybody put a stop order on the destruction of the CRV7s in Dundurn?

I looked up the MBDA website on the Akeron LP and it appears it may be able to go up 8-20 KM. And they mention the LP briefly in the video I posted.

 

[Kirkhill]

I looked up the MBDA website on the Akeron LP and it appears it may be able to go up 8-20 KM. And they mention the LP briefly in the video I posted.

And that is in keeping with everything else that is coming out of Ukraine. Everything is dying at longer ranges - and that is especially true of high value assets, including tanks, SPGs and GBAD assets. Infanteers on legs, attacking in assault groups of 10 to 15 people, even with artillery support, are not doing well against crew served weapons like GPMGs/HMGs/GMGs and Micro/Mini UAVs.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm not an anti tank guy - mortar guy - but anything that is easy to use, not complicated to maintain and can be operated in extreme conditions and is a good price....

 

[ArmyRick]

I'm not an anti tank guy - mortar guy - but anything that is easy to use, not complicated to maintain and can be operated in extreme conditions and is a good price....

I am a TOW guy (old school anti-armour) and everything about FF and now FF or Lock on after launch or man in the loop, is probably awesome!

No more focusing on target for up to 21 seconds

 

[markppcli]

I am a TOW guy (old school anti-armour) and everything about FF and now FF or Lock on after launch or man in the loop, is probably awesome!

No more focusing on target for up to 21 seconds

I was part of a tow det in Latvia, one dismounted stand, and the capability gap between us and the Spanish / Italian’s using spike was massive.

 

[Fabius]

It’s a very advanced missile system but a couple points will don’t like.

Given it’s a French system I doubt it will have many other users in NATO or amongst our direct allies specifically the UK, US and the JEF. That means that further development costs and overall and expenses will likely be higher than Javelin, Spike, NLAW and will have to be funded solely by us. Furthermore I doubt production rates of both launchers and missiles will be very high nor rapidly scalable.

It can only be fired from a tripod as compared to from the shoulder for Javelin. To me that means it’s slower to emplace and displace. It also means it’s bulkier to store in the LAV ( note that if we don’t have ATGMs mounted on the LAV turret, then the dismounted ATGM has to be inside the LAV, having them with the A1 ech to be brought forward is not a viable plan).

For the Canadian Army I think it would be purchased if we focused on purely tactical level capabilities and ignored operational, strategic and industrial pros and cons of comparable systems.

 

[markppcli]

It’s a very advanced missile system but a couple points will don’t like.

Given it’s a French system I doubt it will have many other users in NATO or amongst our direct allies specifically the UK, US and the JEF. That means that further development costs and overall and expenses will likely be higher than Javelin, Spike, NLAW and will have to be funded solely by us. Furthermore I doubt production rates of both launchers and missiles will be very high nor rapidly scalable.

Well us and this small organization that is the French Army. A few potential buyers as well it seems. But in terms of scale you are of course correct.

It can only be fired from a tripod as compared to from the shoulder for Javelin. To me that means it’s slower to emplace and displace. It also means it’s bulkier to store in the LAV ( note that if we don’t have ATGMs mounted on the LAV turret, then the dismounted ATGM has to be inside the LAV, having them with the A1 ech to be brought forward is not a viable plan).

Don’t tell the Army that, that’s exactly the plan for TOW.

Depends entirely on the tripod. The spike also needs a tripod but it sets up like a camping chair / camera tripod and it pretty small when packed away. From what I can see the MMP is a broadly similar set up. Probably there’s a pro in being able to fire stably from the prone, but I don’t know enough about Javely to accurately make that call. The issue is of course that we’re so used to something as ancient as TOW that we assume “tripod” and “battery” mean what they mean to that thing.

For the Canadian Army I think it would be purchased if we focused on purely tactical level capabilities and ignored operational, strategic and industrial pros and cons of comparable systems.

 

[Furniture]

It’s a very advanced missile system but a couple points will don’t like.

Given it’s a French system I doubt it will have many other users in NATO or amongst our direct allies specifically the UK, US and the JEF. That means that further development costs and overall and expenses will likely be higher than Javelin, Spike, NLAW and will have to be funded solely by us. Furthermore I doubt production rates of both launchers and missiles will be very high nor rapidly scalable.

It can only be fired from a tripod as compared to from the shoulder for Javelin. To me that means it’s slower to emplace and displace. It also means it’s bulkier to store in the LAV ( note that if we don’t have ATGMs mounted on the LAV turret, then the dismounted ATGM has to be inside the LAV, having them with the A1 ech to be brought forward is not a viable plan).

For the Canadian Army I think it would be purchased if we focused on purely tactical level capabilities and ignored operational, strategic and industrial pros and cons of comparable systems.

Straying outside my lane a bit(a lot) here, but along with what @markppcli has already said, why can't we have a shorter range system like NLAW for quick/dismounted use, and have something like the Akeron as a heavier, more capable system?

Single solutions are usually a compromise on multiple fronts, so having a useful mix of systems seems smarter to me.

 

[Fabius]

Yes the tripod for either Spike or this missile is nowhere near the size of the TOW tripod and battery. Nonetheless it seems slightly more than the latest LWCLU for Javelin.

Interesting as well is Raytheon and the US Army have demonstrated the LWCLU capability to launch the Stinger after being cued by air defence radars linked to the LWCLU by tactical data links.

 

[Fabius]

I would love to have NLAW at section level, Javelin at Pl and Coy mounted and dismounted and SPIKE NLOS at Bn/Bde.
That would be ideal in my mind and keep allied commonality, scale of production etc.
Randomly, As much as I dislike the TAPV in the roles we have put it, putting JCROW on it as the RWS would be interesting.

 

[dapaterson]

At this point, the CAF needs to acquire what is available in the near term - and not dither further and wait for items with increasingly long lead times due to growing international demand.

 

[Fabius]

Agreed, which is why I think we will end up with the French system, it’s available now with no que unlike the Javelin or Spike.
It’s likely a good UOR to fill a gap of our own fault but for my reasons above I don’t think it’s a great long term system for us.

 

[Good2Golf]

You are correct. Our procurement is a non-working bureaucratic nightmare.

In the PMO/PCO/TBS play-book it’s a throttle…it’s not fixed because the Government has no desire to fix it, because it’s doing exactly what they want it to do…not spend any appreciable amounts of money that would otherwise be disbursed to the “Payments for Votes Individuals” category.