Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

What about this Polish - Finnish unit? How would this stack up?

KTO Rosomak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would consider that as a Fighting Vehicle or F Echelon vehicle.

I would consider this, the Patria CAV, as a B Echelon vehicle



And this, the IVECO Light Tactical Vehicle for the Swedish Army, an Administrative vehicle (A Echelon?)



....

I would consider this an A vehicle in the unarmoured form (Beowulf) and a B vehicle in the armoured form (Viking) - Unit price somewhere in the 1.5 MUSD range.

 

[ytz]

Part of my rationale for stipulating the LAV II is that it is the closest thing I can find to the original bare bones amphibious armoured transport left in anybody's catalog. It mirrors the Patria series of wheeled amphibious APCs that are being built by the Europeans.

Finnish order in 2024 was €208M for 91 vehicles with an option for 70 more. At present exchange rates that works out to over CA$3.5M. That's 6-7 Senators. Very far from your idea of a LAV II and some Ram pickups for the price of 2-3 Senators.

Will add too, that these ideas are all logistical nightmares too. More vehicle types means more LCMM shops, more specialized training for techs, more unique supply bins for parts. On an on. As it is the CA made some critical errors consolidating vehicle types by not tying the types to other projects like LRPF. What you suggest, only makes all of that much, much worse. Having seen the air force go through this helicopter types, I feel for my army brothers and sisters.

 

[ytz]

It is a glorified Brinks truck, I really don't understand WTF people think it is a viable military vehicle for.

Generally Light Utility Vehicles are not armored - or have optional armor kits. My point I have tried to make to many here is the JLTV isn't a LUV, and neither in the Senator, they are basically MRAP type vehicles.

The GM ISV however is a LUV, and I would also suggest that the GM LUV is also a LUV...

You're not wrong on what "LUV" technically means. But I would also say, there's no point getting wedded to a project name. Requirements and ideas can change as they go through the process. And given the proliferation of loitering munitions, drones , mines, etc it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that "Light Utility" should mean "Protected mobility". Very likely the project gets split too, as they go through and they figure out they need both an ISV type and JLTV type of vehicle.

 

[Kirkhill]

As per ....

Finland signs deal for up to 161 CAVS armoured vehicles | Shephard

Finland has signed a firm contract for 91 Patria 6x6 Common Armoured Vehicle Systems (CAVS) vehicles, with an option to acquire 70 more.

www.shephardmedia.com

Programme value​

Finland’s Minister of Defence Antti Kaikkonen has revealed that $224.6 million had been authorised for this deal.

Each Patria 6x6 procured by Finland is forecast to cost $1.066 million, derived from the estimated unit cost of Latvian vehicles procured under the same programme in 2021.

Latvia acquired 200 Patria 6x6s at a cost of approximately $236.97 million. The estimated unit cost was calculated by subtracting 10% of the value of this contract to account for support costs and dividing the remainder by 200.

...

The vehicles I am describing, functionally, all fall into the category of what we used to know as TCVs or Troop Carrying Vehicles of which the old Deuce and a half was one. TCVs now, are MSVS SMP TCV, MSVS MilCOTS TCV, ACSV TCV and in the lightly armoured versions are MPVs or PVs and more heavily armoured APCs.

The Senator is a lightly armoured Protected Vehicle, or in the MRAP form a Protected Patrol Vehicle, similar in function to the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle.

When comparing apples to apples the difference in platform is the amount of protection and mobility.

I make no reference at all to the fighting ability of any given platform because that, in my opinion, is far more dependent on the high value systems that are mounted on board.

TCVs are vehicles for carrying troops and the kit which they embus and debus and take with them.

...

The Swedish van was referred to as a tactical vehicle. I am not convinced that any light vehicle can be a tactical vehicle. Unless you are looking at the special circumstances of people like the LRDG and the SAS in North Africa, or are desperate as in the case of the Ukrainians and, increasingly the Russians, I am not convinced of the utility of closing with the enemy to destroy them in a pick up truck or van.

Even Protected Vehicles and APCs are not intended to go smashing onto enemy positions.

....

With respect to the cost of multiple fleets - in 2013 1 PPCLI could have responded to the Southern Alberta floods as effectively in Dodge Vans or even original Bison WAPCs and saved a lot of wear and tear on the rest of their multi-million dollar vehicles and systems. They would probably have been more effective still if they could have been deployed in Bandvagns. (Christ! Was that 12 years ago? And we were discussing new vehicles then).

 

[KevinB]

You're not wrong on what "LUV" technically means. But I would also say, there's no point getting wedded to a project name. Requirements and ideas can change as they go through the process. And given the proliferation of loitering munitions, drones , mines, etc it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that "Light Utility" should mean "Protected mobility". Very likely the project gets split too, as they go through and they figure out they need both an ISV type and JLTV type of vehicle.

I believe that a lot of the issue comes about the expected roles.
Canada bought a limited number of the GM ISV's for a LUV role -- the ISV a good example of a LUV -- but the whole skeletal frame means it sucks for inclement weather and of course adding things like CP boxes etc - which the GM LUV works well for.

I worry about Protected Mobility if it isn't very well defined you end up with an enormous catch all. A M113 or Stryker is a Protected Mobility Vehicle - but so is a JLTV and a bunch of other MRAP type things. But Loitering Munitions and Various UAS, Rockets, Artillery, Mortars, Mines, can quickly take a LUV to something like the NAMER APC in the name of protections, and you end up with no Light, or Utility in the LUV...

 

[Remius]

Bill Blair on CBC saying we may not buy all 88 F35s and may look at other options…

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the mixed fleet issue



Horses for courses. Sometimes there are irreducible minimums.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Bill Blair on CBC saying we may not buy all 88 F35s and may look at other options…

F&ck - we’ll buy 65 and then dither for the next 4-6yrs and end up with only 65 and nothing else.

 

[dapaterson]

F&ck - we’ll buy 65 and then dither for the next 4-6yrs and end up with only 65 and nothing else.

If it means retiring Fighter Pilots have fewer opportunities to cash in, maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If it means retiring Fighter Pilots have fewer opportunities to cash in, maybe that's a good thing.

I guess that’s one way of looking at it.
It will be just another way of us going backwards in capability and further becoming Argentina or Chile or New Zealand in terms of countries giving a rats ass what we think.

 

[foresterab]

Indeed. The majority of the cost in manufacturing these vehicles isn't the base vehicle. It's the steel and skilled welding needed to get to STANAG.

Also, the Senator uses an F-550 chassis. How much does that cost?

Couldn't price out a 550 online. But the 450 dually came in at $109,000 before taxes and modifications.

 

[MilEME09]

Well Blair stays in cabinet, sadly we go another cabinet shuffle of @FJAG not being MND

 

[KevinB]

Couldn't price out a 550 online. But the 450 dually came in at $109,000 before taxes and modifications.

https://shop.ford.com/configure/chassis-cab/config/summary/Config%5B%7CFord%7CChassis%20Cab%7C2025%7C1%7C1.%7C663A.X5H.192.PM7...XLT.SEC.DRW.65M.550CC.%5D?intcmp=moddetails-bb-fbc

Your looking around 65k USD for the empty back option - I suspect they get it much cheaper without a lot of the cab on it - and buying in bulk.

One of the .gov entities in VA bought a bunch of them a few years ago with a fitted back cargo box, and they paid 45k each.

 

[PrairieFella]

I would consider that as a Fighting Vehicle or F Echelon vehicle.

I would consider this, the Patria CAV, as a B Echelon vehicle

View attachment 91896

And this, the IVECO Light Tactical Vehicle for the Swedish Army, an Administrative vehicle (A Echelon?)

View attachment 91897

....

I would consider this an A vehicle in the unarmoured form (Beowulf) and a B vehicle in the armoured form (Viking) - Unit price somewhere in the 1.5 MUSD range.

View attachment 91898

Your echelon understanding is backwards. F ech is fighting troops. A ech is just behind the FEBA, A1 usually a bound or two behind and A2 several behind. B is your rear areas.

 

[PrairieFella]

I believe that a lot of the issue comes about the expected roles.
Canada bought a limited number of the GM ISV's for a LUV role -- the ISV a good example of a LUV -- but the whole skeletal frame means it sucks for inclement weather and of course adding things like CP boxes etc - which the GM LUV works well for.

I worry about Protected Mobility if it isn't very well defined you end up with an enormous catch all. A M113 or Stryker is a Protected Mobility Vehicle - but so is a JLTV and a bunch of other MRAP type things. But Loitering Munitions and Various UAS, Rockets, Artillery, Mortars, Mines, can quickly take a LUV to something like the NAMER APC in the name of protections, and you end up with no Light, or Utility in the LUV...

M113 and Stryker are not PMV/IMV. They are APCs. The rolesare grey, but different.

 

[Kirkhill]

Your echelon understanding is backwards. F ech is fighting troops. A ech is just behind the FEBA, A1 usually a bound or two behind and A2 several behind. B is your rear areas.

Thanks for squaring me away. It has been a while.

But regardless of nomenclature - Forwards = (F) lots of armour, Mid = (A) some armour, Rear = (B) no armour.

 

[PrairieFella]

Thanks for squaring me away. It has been a while.

But regardless of nomenclature - Forwards = (F) lots of armour, Mid = (A) some armour, Rear = (B) no armour.

Generally yes. You'll have some armour in the rear on force pro, etc. But close enough. I won't speak to what I think it should look like, because I have no clue, I know the Armoured Squadron and that's about it lol

 

[Kirkhill]

Generally yes. You'll have some armour in the rear on force pro, etc. But close enough. I won't speak to what I think it should look like, because I have no clue, I know the Armoured Squadron and that's about it lol

I think the key issue is you will never have one swiss army vehicle that meets all needs. Even if it was possible it would end up being overly complex and overly expensive. Consequently, that great bugbear of the Canadian command structure rears its head: decisions.

Somebody has to decide how many of what and how, where and when they should be utilized.

....

Straight up question, do you feel you need your F echelon vehicle on the floor of your armoury all the time? Or could you manage with a local training center fully equipped and a squadron's worth of B vehicles in the armouries for admin and training?

 

[KevinB]

M113 and Stryker are not PMV/IMV. They are APCs. The rolesare grey, but different.

It all depends on who is making the definitions -- we consider the Stryker a PMV, basically as it isn't an IFV.
The IFV fights into the objective with the tanks - the armored buses, don't do that.

This is one of the areas where Canada and the LAV are unusual - as you don't do tank/infantry co-ordination the same way as many others.


IMHO the entire PMV aspect is a GWOT'ism that probably needs to be removed from usage along with MRAP.