Let's Talk Briefly About The Land Anti-X Project

Project Update

I wasn't planning to talk about ATGMs, mostly because there isn't much to really talk about. That isn't to say nothing is being done, nor that it's not important. Sometimes you just get a project that is so straightforward, so simple that there is little to actually discuss in the grand scheme.

I talked about ATGM on X yesterday, and a few people asked if I would do a post on them. I originally wasn't going to because I didn't really think there was much to fully be said on the topic at this time. We have no RFI; it is a middle-of-the-ladder priority for the Army, and the project is pretty much decided.

That shouldn't stop me, though, I realize. Even if I can't say much, I should at least make note of the project's existence so that people have somewhere to go and get info from, especially when existing resources like the DCB are so minuscule and barely updated.

So, since it is a lazy morning and this will be quick, let's get into the Canadian Army's premier (well, only) ATGM project - the Land Anti-X (LAX) project.

---

The Demands

The Land Anti-X (LAX) project aims to acquire a fifth-generation family of missiles capable of providing both dismounted and mounted anti-tank and anti-structure capabilities to the Canadian Army.

LAX is not to be confused with PAXM, the project to acquire an urgent anti-tank capability for the boys in Latvia, which eventually went to Rafael and the Spike LR2. Those are starting delivery, though not without some issues.

Software issues affecting the performance of the missiles, CLU in damaged or in lackluster conditio, firing issues during testing. The story of the LR2 in Canadian service has been a string of bad luck. A lot of small or rare things that could of happened seem to have happened.

To clarify, as I know it, most of these issues were fixed, and fairly quickly. That is, save any rumors of a damaged CLU. That is less confirmed to me, and I don't know the current status. However, I did want to make note of it, and the fact that the current timeline for FOC regarding PAXM remains unchanged.

So, consider this the mini-Spike update, tucked into another post. I realized I hadn't gotten to really bring up Spike much, so I might as well make mention of some of the issues and status here.

To also clarify, because several of you have asked, LAX is specifically looking for a fifth-generation ATGM. Quite a few of you, I have learned, don't actually know what that is. Understandable, really; it isn't something you hear, and the definition can be loose.

Essentially, fifth-generation ATGMs are digitally integrated Anti-X systems built around onboard AI and advanced sensor fusion. By using a combination of onboard machine learning, uncooled thermals, and high-def optical sensors that work together seamlessly, fifth-generation ATGMs act both as a long-range strike system and an integrated sensor node on the modern battlespace.

As an example, if an enemy vehicle ducks behind a building or deploys multi-spectral smoke, the AI remembers its shape and predicts exactly where it will emerge. And because modern fifth-gen systems lack coolant to run out of, operators can use the launch unit as a persistent observation camera for hours before ever deciding to pull the trigger.

When you combine that network capability with a programmable multi-purpose warhead and a secure two-way data link for mid-flight steering, it fundamentally changes the system's role. It elevates the ATGM from a standard Anti-X system into a collaborative, adaptable platform.

Anywho, LAX isn't technically a single capability, although the hope is to acquire a common family able to fulfill all the requirements. Usually, we would call these initiatives, but because of that common framing, I elect to still call it a project.

LAX is divided into three categories - PAX-R, PAX-M (with a dash so it's different), and MAX-M. The requirements of the three are fairly simple:

• PAX-R: A short-range, dismounted, man-portable ATGM capable of targeting structures or armoured vehicles in the 800-1000m range.

• PAX-M: Same as PAX-R, a dismounted ATGM capability, but at ranges out to 4-5km; essentially a repeat of the PAXM UOR.

• MAX-M: Unlike the other two, MAX-M aims to acquire a mounted, long-range ATGM capability for Canada's armoured and rotary fleets out at ranges of 8km+. That includes future nTACS platforms and the future ACV-W fleets.

As of now, an RFI for LAX is aimed for either this or next year, with a contract award set for 2027/2028. The hope is for deliveries to begin before 2030, likely 2028/2029. One other thing to note is that an ATGM capability, and the project tied to it, comes from Strong, Secure, Engaged.

This project has been on the books since 2017 in various forms, so we are going on a decade since it was first in policy to contracting the capability proper. Almost 13 by the time that capability is actually delivered.

I don't count the PAXM UOR in this equation; I consider it separate. Like many of the SSE projects still collecting dust, LAX has gone through various proposals and stages. It has gone through the ID and OA phases, got delayed through the UOR, and then went back to the drawing board in light of developments after the last few years. At least it's finally moving toward procuring a proper capability, but it's always good to remember that we still have quite a few SSE projects lumbering around.

To describe it from a friend of mine: older projects tend to fall into the older system, and newer projects tend to get the nice touches and special treatment, but there is a desire to change that. There is a desire to get everything quickly under the new banner. I am not judge or jury to anyone. I think the DIA deserves a chance to execute their vision, and I hope that includes pushing ahead a lot of the remaining SSE projects. I have hope.

The Options

Anyways, enough ranting on old systems. As it stands, there are two systems that are mass-produced in the NATO/FE ecosystem that generally fall into the fifth-generation category. Those are the Rafael Spike (as mentioned before) and the MBDA Akeron. You could maybe throw EuroSpike in here? In this case, I believe Rafael takes priority. Same systems, though, so it really doesn't change anything.

SPIKE is a family of Israeli multi-purpose, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) designed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. The system is built around a pair of sophisticated dual-mode electro-optical (CCD) and imaging infrared (IIR) seekers. This architecture allows for true "fire-and-forget" autonomy alongside "fire, observe, and update" capabilities; the latter is facilitated by a trailing fiber-optic wire or radio-frequency datalink that provides man-in-the-loop control to retarget or abort mid-flight.

Most variants employ a two-stage solid-fuel rocket motor with a "soft launch" mechanism, safely ejecting the missile before the main motor ignites to minimize launch signature and allow firing from confined spaces.

The architecture scales across several mission-specific variants:

• The lightweight, disposable Spike-SR (up to 1.5 km).

• The infantry-portable Spike-MR (2.5 km) and the more modern Spike-LR2 (4-5.5 km).

• The heavier Spike-ER2 (10-16 km) optimized for helicopters and naval mounts.

• The massive Spike NLOS (Non-Line-Of-Sight), which relies on an advanced RF datalink to strike concealed targets up to 32 km from ground launchers and 50 km from aircraft.

On the opposition, the Akeron Family is a French fifth-generation, network-enabled guided missile system developed by MBDA, originally designated as the MMP (Missile Moyenne Portée).

Engineered for high tactical flexibility, Akeron utilizes an uncooled, high-resolution dual-band IR/TV seeker integrated with a fully digitized firing post that incorporates GPS, magnetic compasses, and laser rangefinders. Its standout technical feature is a scalable-effects tandem warhead with selectable modes - anti-tank, anti-infrastructure, and anti-personnel - capable of penetrating over 1,000 mm of rolled homogeneous armor or breaching two meters of reinforced concrete.

Operationally, it supports fire-and-forget, lock-on before launch (LOBL), and lock-on after launch (LOAL), allowing operators to strike beyond-line-of-sight targets via third-party drone designation.

The primary variant, Akeron MP, is a 140 mm caliber man-portable system weighing 15 kg in its canister, utilizing a low-recoil, smokeless sustainer motor to reach targets up to 5 km away while preserving operator stealth. Its heavier, longer-reaching counterpart, the Akeron LP, is in development to equip rotary-wing aircraft like the Tiger MkIII helicopter and heavy armored vehicles, designed to rival Hellfire-class munitions for extended, beyond-line-of-sight engagements.

In terms of LAX, there is a clear hurdle here for Akeron, and that is the lack of an option for the PAX-R requirement. While MBDA does make systems like Enforcer, which could fit the requirements, as I know of LAX, the requirement is for all three missiles to share a common family; this means the Enforcer/Akeron combo, while really cool, is at a disadvantage, if not excluded.

That would leave Spike as the only real option available on the table, something that I feel a bit iffy about. I don't like these kinds of combination projects. I think many of you know that. I prefer competitions to be open enough to have some proper competition and debate.

Of course, I understand here that these are all very similar capabilities, and to section off PAX-R would mean running another project, another competition, and delaying that capability into service.

And as always, we don't know until an RFI drops what exactly is expected. I have a personal hope that the requirements are open enough that something like Enforcer could sneak in there, even at a disadvantage. I much prefer a full competition. I know that is a selfish ask in mamy cases, but to exclude a great family of missiles like Akeron for not meeting that Short-Range requirement? Feels like a lost opportunity to explore another option.

As for what I know, though? The desire is one common missile, one family. That requirement, if kept strict, will essentially leave one option on the table, and that is more Spike. There is no other mass-available fifth-generation system on the market that could show up in the next year or so with serious hope to challenge the dominant NATO option (if we also group EuroSpike, which I do).

And part of that is why the competition at this time ain't the most fun to talk about, and why I put it off a bit. There is, with how things are looking, one product that fits, one that matches all the demands, and one that is the undisputed system among our allies.

If the RFI comes out and things are less strict? Awesome. I hope it is. I can't say with confidence it will be, though, and so I go off the assumption it won't be. I feel that is a fair assessment. Either way, it is still going to be a fantastic set of capabilities: a layered, multi-range family of missiles that sits well as both a short-range and beyond-line-of-sight precision attack capability.

They'll pair nicely with the new M72 and M4 Carl Gs coming in at the lowest tier of anti-armour/anti-structure capabilities; something Canada has lacked well since the Eryx was retired (use this thread also to make all your Eryx/Akeron jokes; you have my blessing), and something we are only limitedly getting back with Spike in Latvia.

No matter what, we walk away with a great system and a layered network of Anti-X capabilities spread across the CAF. It will be a win; I just hope that win comes with some fun for those of us who track these things!