• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Akeron Missile, yay or nay?

I’m a bigger fan of it in the ‘city bus’ mode.
Much more nimbler for urban work to get in and out.
Having the convertible option for both is a nice feature I’ll admit.
I like both ends of the spectrum, obviously Hooks rock, the fatter and faster the better, but had a single flight in the M’egg and that thing was insane awesomeness…like you said, even hotter ride than the A’egg I was told by the CW5 making sure I didn’t stuff the M’egg into the ground. 🚁 ❤️
 
I like shooting off the bench on the M, if your going for limited collateral, it’s like being prone on a rollercoaster that will stop dead still for you to shoot and then play space coaster again. Plus most pilots like the fact you’re limiting their profile - and just as importantly not dumping casings into the cockpit. A buddy of mine at VB did a retirement shoot sitting sideways inside like a savage and almost ended up being a final ride as a few 7.62 casings got into either rudder or other flight linkage and they almost dropped into the drink beside the ship — sure while being inside does don’t ruin one’s hair as badly - it’s not a great plan for anyone.
There was a LL that came out of that…

While I’d prefer a Cobra or Apache for open ground fire support, the A is the tits though in tight areas.
 
While I’d prefer a Cobra or Apache for open ground fire support, the A is the tits though in tight areas.
That and it has the same engine as a 206 with less weight, means you can power out of bad spots as well. We used them a lot in mining exploration.
 
MILAN, of course.

Man portable and good to 3000m (ER version) day or night. And the MIRA sight makes a great night surveillance device.

Sarcasm?
That’s half the range of Javelin
Javelins CLU has a way better thermal and is lighter.
 
It makes sense for France to send it's kit to the current peer-on-peer war to see if it delivers on the battlefield. It makes sense for Ukraine to take whatever kit the West will send it's way.

While logically it makes sense for the CAF to use what America does, politically it might not. If the Akeron, or some other weapon system proves itself in Ukraine, and it's more politically viable to buy them, I'd rather a 90% solution than the current nothing we have.
 
The more that I see of this war, the more convinced I am that we need to be a domestic supplier of most ammunitions even if that means we have factories that only produce a steady supply of our peacetime needs but also are paid to have the capability to rapidly ramp up war-time production.

I keep having this nagging feeling that we are being suckered into using up our (NATO's) war-stocks. The only thing calming me is the fact that if the OS reporting on Russian equipment casualties is half accurate then they aren't a big conventional threat anymore. That doesn't mean that they won't be in the future, even Russians learn from their mistakes, and then there's China and NK and Iran and a host of others who might do some local gathering of low hanging fruit while stocks are low.

I tend to be on the side of mistrusting adversaries but the Kumbaya days are over no matter how much Socks-Boy is yearning for them. There are really very few options as to how to interpret the writing on the wall. For me, deterrence requires an ability to project credible strength. If conventional forces are too expensive then maybe we should reconsider having our own force de frappe.

🍻
 
The more that I see of this war, the more convinced I am that we need to be a domestic supplier of most ammunitions even if that means we have factories that only produce a steady supply of our peacetime needs but also are paid to have the capability to rapidly ramp up war-time production.

I keep having this nagging feeling that we are being suckered into using up our (NATO's) war-stocks. The only thing calming me is the fact that if the OS reporting on Russian equipment casualties is half accurate then they aren't a big conventional threat anymore. That doesn't mean that they won't be in the future, even Russians learn from their mistakes, and then there's China and NK and Iran and a host of others who might do some local gathering of low hanging fruit while stocks are low.

I tend to be on the side of mistrusting adversaries but the Kumbaya days are over no matter how much Socks-Boy is yearning for them. There are really very few options as to how to interpret the writing on the wall. For me, deterrence requires an ability to project credible strength. If conventional forces are too expensive then maybe we should reconsider having our own force de frappe.

🍻
100% agree on the need for domestic munitions production (both smart and dumb) that can be scaled up when required.

A key point in the conflict for me will be when Ukraine eventually makes its next counter attack. I think that unlike the Kharkiv counter-offensive the Russians won't be unprepared this time. IF Ukraine is able to successfully integrate Western tanks/IFVs into its force and IF they are able to also successfully conduct a combined arms attack with tactics and coordination approaching the level we'd expect from our own Army then I think we'll get some important insights into our own force structures.

If despite the serious degradation of their forces so far the Russians are still able to use their fires, ATGMs and aviation to prevent the Ukrainians from achieving any significant level of maneuver and concentration of force then we might have to seriously look at the utility of heavy (and expensive) forces. If however the Russians are unable to find a counter to concentrations of highly mobile, highly protected forces then I think the path the US is going down will be somewhat vindicated.
 
I like the “sock boy” reference. An unruly petulant child in a world of adults.
 
100% agree on the need for domestic munitions production (both smart and dumb) that can be scaled up when required.

A key point in the conflict for me will be when Ukraine eventually makes its next counter attack. I think that unlike the Kharkiv counter-offensive the Russians won't be unprepared this time. IF Ukraine is able to successfully integrate Western tanks/IFVs into its force and IF they are able to also successfully conduct a combined arms attack with tactics and coordination approaching the level we'd expect from our own Army then I think we'll get some important insights into our own force structures.

If despite the serious degradation of their forces so far the Russians are still able to use their fires, ATGMs and aviation to prevent the Ukrainians from achieving any significant level of maneuver and concentration of force then we might have to seriously look at the utility of heavy (and expensive) forces. If however the Russians are unable to find a counter to concentrations of highly mobile, highly protected forces then I think the path the US is going down will be somewhat vindicated.

I'm with both you and FJAG on domestic production. I would go further and say that every member of NATO should be under obligation to maintain stocks, even of equipment that may not be necessary for their home defence or their expeditionary obligations. There is a demonstrated need to be able to pass stocks forward to meet the needs of our allies. And Canada and the US are uniquely positioned to be secure suppliers.

Back to WW2 and Inglis Brens and wooden aircraft.

Alignment with NAMMO, SAAB, Thales and Rheinmetall, as well as GDOTS makes all kind of sense.
 
The more that I see of this war, the more convinced I am that we need to be a domestic supplier of most ammunitions even if that means we have factories that only produce a steady supply of our peacetime needs but also are paid to have the capability to rapidly ramp up war-time production.
I’d suggest that having surge production in Canada needs to be a priority. Domestic production during peacetime when stocks are near full isn’t a necessity, as it can make sense to run just certain lines. But the ability needs to exist to do it.

I keep having this nagging feeling that we are being suckered into using up our (NATO's) war-stocks. The only thing calming me is the fact that if the OS reporting on Russian equipment casualties is half accurate then they aren't a big conventional threat anymore.
Half a shit ton, is still a lot…
I’m one of the believers that RuAF is over 200k losses, but that still leaves them a lot more that most other countries.

That doesn't mean that they won't be in the future, even Russians learn from their mistakes, and then there's China and NK and Iran and a host of others who might do some local gathering of low hanging fruit while stocks are low.

I tend to be on the side of mistrusting adversaries but the Kumbaya days are over no matter how much Socks-Boy is yearning for them. There are really very few options as to how to interpret the writing on the wall. For me, deterrence requires an ability to project credible strength. If conventional forces are too expensive then maybe we should reconsider having our own force de frappe.

🍻
You know what’s more expensive than having a cutting edge military? Not having one…
 
Back
Top