Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[MilEME09]

Ah, but there's other medium-longer term benefits as well for one of the players involved

Canadian Roshel to Help Build Armored Vehicles in Ukraine

Ukrainian state-owned defense firm Ukroboronprom has signed an agreement with Canada’s Roshel for the joint production of armored vehicles in Ukraine.

thedefensepost.com

Ukraine and Canada to Jointly Produce Armored Personnel Carriers - Oj

JSC Ukrainian Defense Industry and Canada’s Roshel will co-produce armored personnel carriers in Ukraine, boosting defense capabilities and local manufacturing.

odessa-journal.com

Canada and Ukraine Partner for Domestic Production of Roshel Senator Armored Vehicles news

On February 24, 2025, Canada’s Roshel and Ukraine’s Ukroboronprom signed an agreement to jointly produce Roshel Senator armored personnel carriers (APCs) in Ukraine. The collaboration will accelerate

global.tendernews.com

Also note that Babcock is now helping Roshel with engineering assistance and other technical help which could lead to better manufacturing techniques etc and lower cost. One of the biggest issues for Roshel is access to mil grade stuff, which they had to pay a premium for. I would expect to see costs significantly drop for their LUV pitch.

 

[KevinB]

Which is about $577k CAD today. Better purpose built vehicle, but as a LUV replacement I think the Senator's fine. LUV replacement project seems to have a budget of 250-500 million, and the only numbers I've seen publicly are 1600, so even at the top end we're looking at more like $300k per vehicle (less, really, given other aspects covered under that project budget) if we're serious about sticking to that budget, and Roshel offering that number of Senators. I have strong doubts given how good we are at budgets with defence projects. Buying Roshel keeps most of the money in Canada as well.

My point was the JLTV isn't a LUV, and I would argue that the Senator isn't either.

Light Utility Vehicle - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

Light Utility Vehicle - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

apps.forces.gc.ca

It doesn't appear that the program has moved forward at the anticipated speed:

Objective​

To replace the in-service Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled fleets.

Requirements​

The project will recapitalize the light utility vehicle capability currently provided by the in-service Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (Mercedes G-Wagon SMP and Chevrolet Silverado MilCOTS) fleets at the end of their useful life.

Funding Range​

$250 million to $499 million

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)​

Options Analysis Phase: In Progress
Start Definition 2023/2024
Start Implementation 2027/2028
Initial Delivery 2028/2029
Final Delivery 2031/2032

So it appears the program is still stuck in the Options Analysis Phase (whatever that is supposed to mean, I would guess that would be Industrial Analysis - to see what MOTS/COTS systems exist.
Start Definition to me would be laying out the KPP's of the system with Optimum and Threshold Performance characteristics being defined.

If we just want to boost spending short term to meet NATO goals, I think infrastructure investment, housing, childcare, stuff like proper numbers of STANO and personal equipment like body armour, increased O&M funding, and a pay bump are all better before rush buying Senators.

I would hope that before ANY new equipment is bought that the CAF has a plan to what the force structure is anticipated being -- or your just buying stuff to buy stuff.

But I don't think it's the worst idea, either separate from the LUV project, or to accelarate/expand that project, we could always sell/donate them down the road if we select a better platform in the future and chalk that up as foreign aid by donating to the UN or friendly countries as security assistance.

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...

Site Maintenance

It should have a driveway cost to the CAF of no more than 60k / unit (and really should be less) Buy 5k of them, and do it again in 5 years...

 

[ytz]

Poland - 1yr - 100,000 new volunteers to undergo military training for addition to ready reserves.

Polish population - 36,690,000
Canadian population - 40,100,000

Polish Military - 216,000 (2024) aiming for 250,000
Polish Territorial Defence Force - aiming for 50,000
Polish Reserves - to train 100,000 volunteers every year with the aim of training every adult male.

Tax as % of GDP in 2022 as per OECD.

Canada - 33.8
Poland - 34.4

The Polish public pay more in taxes and sacrifice years of their lives to military service because the threat is acute. It's going to be hard to get taxes and defence spending up to that level in a country that sees defence as optional. And even now only wants to spend more to please Americans, not for actual capability.

 

[ytz]

If we are going to splash out 500,000 for a vehicle then might as well go whole hog and put that money toward Bandvagns and LAV IIs.

Your inflation anchoring is impacting your judgement.

How much do you think a LAV II would cost in 2025?

 

[Kirkhill]

Your inflation anchoring is impacting your judgement.

How much do you think a LAV II would cost in 2025?

Fair. But I was thinking more of buying 1 LAV II and 2 or 3 Dodge Rams rather than 2 or 3 Senators.

 

[ytz]

Fair. But I was thinking more of buying 1 LAV II and 2 or 3 Dodge Rams rather than 2 or 3 Senators.

In reality, it's more likely that a single LAV II would cost as much 4-6 Senators at least. And that's an optimistic estimate. I can see a LAV II coming in at 10x the cost of a Senator depending on certain costs.

 

[Czech_pivo]

In reality, it's more likely that a single LAV II would cost as much 4-6 Senators at least. And that's an optimistic estimate. I can see a LAV II coming in at 10x the cost of a Senator depending on certain costs.

5m CAD for a LAV 2?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fair. But I was thinking more of buying 1 LAV II and 2 or 3 Dodge Rams rather than 2 or 3 Senators.

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

KTO Rosomak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IKnowNothing]

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

KTO Rosomak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If we're looking at Finnish options for a "better than a Senator but reasonable low cost armoured runabout" I think we should look hard at why these didn't go beyond trials, and consider going after the IP for domestic production.

Army Guide

Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - PMPV 6x6 MiSu, Mine protected carrier, Auxiliary Vehicles

www.army-guide.com

 

[ytz]

5m CAD for a LAV 2?

A LAV 6 was $4.2M in 2019 as per the contract. That would be over $5M today as per BOC inflation calculator.

A modernized LAV II could well be $4M in 2025 dollars.

Whatever it is, it most definitely won't be the equivalent of 2-3 Senators as Kirkhill suggested.

 

[Czech_pivo]

A LAV 6 was $4.2M in 2019 as per the contract. That would be over $5M today as per BOC inflation calculator.

A modernized LAV II could well be $4M in 2025 dollars.

Whatever it is, it most definitely won't be the equivalent of 2-3 Senators as Kirkhill suggested.

Not much of a delta price wise between 6 vs 2 then. If that is true, I'd allocate a mix of new 6 and 2 instead of all 2.

 

[ytz]

Not much or a delta price wise between 6 vs 2 then. If that is true, I'd allocate a mix of new 6 and 2 instead of all 2.

Whether it's $3M or $4M, there's just no point getting a LAV II at all. A Hi-Lo mix should be a proper wheeled APC (LAV 6) and a cheaper but decent IMV (Senator). And you're seeing some reservists here actually advocate for that.

The arguments for lots of advanced armour for the reserves are ignoring supportability and logistics. I don't even think that purchase cost is the issue. In a world where we're ramping up to 2%, spending a few billion dollars on LAVs for the reserves shouldn't be an issue. But whether that distributed fleet can be properly managed and supported is a whole different question. It's also ignoring utility. Right now a lot of reservists go to training areas by bus. Giving them a vehicle they can actually use locally has value.

 

[ytz]

My point was the JLTV isn't a LUV, and I would argue that the Senator isn't either.

Light Utility Vehicle - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

Light Utility Vehicle - Defence Capabilities Blueprint

apps.forces.gc.ca

It doesn't appear that the program has moved forward at the anticipated speed:

Objective​

To replace the in-service Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled fleets.

Requirements​

The project will recapitalize the light utility vehicle capability currently provided by the in-service Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (Mercedes G-Wagon SMP and Chevrolet Silverado MilCOTS) fleets at the end of their useful life.

Funding Range​

$250 million to $499 million

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)​

Options Analysis Phase: In Progress
Start Definition 2023/2024
Start Implementation 2027/2028
Initial Delivery 2028/2029
Final Delivery 2031/2032

So it appears the program is still stuck in the Options Analysis Phase (whatever that is supposed to mean, I would guess that would be Industrial Analysis - to see what MOTS/COTS systems exist.
Start Definition to me would be laying out the KPP's of the system with Optimum and Threshold Performance characteristics being defined.


I would hope that before ANY new equipment is bought that the CAF has a plan to what the force structure is anticipated being -- or your just buying stuff to buy stuff.

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...

Site Maintenance

It should have a driveway cost to the CAF of no more than 60k / unit (and really should be less) Buy 5k of them, and do it again in 5 years...

If we buy Senators at an inflated price, it's for the same reason we are buying River Class DDGHs at an inflated price. Sometimes, price isn't everything.

And I am actually not certain the lifecycle costs (not just purchase price) of the JLTV are cheaper than the Senator. It's probably cheaper and easier to support Senators than JLTVs.

 

[foresterab]

For comparison though...

Pricing out a Ford 250 4x4 Long box with diesel engine online. Just under $95,000 without getting into fancy trim packages, canopy toppers, winch mounts, lights or paint jobs which could easily add another $15-20k. No sales taxes added at that price.

So roughly 1/3rd the cost of a Roshel Senator.

 

[ytz]

For comparison though...

Pricing out a Ford 250 4x4 Long box with diesel engine online. Just under $95,000 without getting into fancy trim packages, canopy toppers, winch mounts, lights or paint jobs which could easily add another $15-20k. No sales taxes added at that price.

So roughly 1/3rd the cost of a Roshel Senator.

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?

 

[PrairieFella]

Whether it's $3M or $4M, there's just no point getting a LAV II at all. A Hi-Lo mix should be a proper wheeled APC (LAV 6) and a cheaper but decent IMV (Senator). And you're seeing some reservists here actually advocate for that.

The arguments for lots of advanced armour for the reserves are ignoring supportability and logistics. I don't even think that purchase cost is the issue. In a world where we're ramping up to 2%, spending a few billion dollars on LAVs for the reserves shouldn't be an issue. But whether that distributed fleet can be properly managed and supported is a whole different question. It's also ignoring utility. Right now a lot of reservists go to training areas by bus. Giving them a vehicle they can actually use locally has value.

There's no reason they can't depot A
armoured platforms like how the US ARNG treats AFVs or how we used to treat AFVs with the Lynx or Cougar/AVGP. Reservists are more and more qualified on heavier platforms because of the ops tempo in Latvia, this should be leveraged to allow them to train with the real deal. Kit can be depoted in Wx/Suffield, Shilo, Petawawa, Borden, Valcartier and Gagetown. That covers a massive portion of the RCIC, RCE and RCAC reserve. BC is tricky but maybe they can make a storage deal with the Yanks at Yakima.

 

[PuckChaser]

Thread title edited so it's more inclusive to every government promising, and failing to, increase military spending.

 

[Czech_pivo]

To be fair, it's not all due to us, the tanks are barely running because KMW barely makes any spare parts. Support for the original A4 is almost nonexistent. It's why the army long term wants to Ditch the A4 for modern leopard varients that are supported. Like everything it's subject to budget, we would be fine if parts were made. Maybe we can use metal 3D printing in the short term?

For comparison though...

Pricing out a Ford 250 4x4 Long box with diesel engine online. Just under $95,000 without getting into fancy trim packages, canopy toppers, winch mounts, lights or paint jobs which could easily add another $15-20k. No sales taxes added at that price.

So roughly 1/3rd the cost of a Roshel Senator.

Ahhh, but I can get us the 'Friends and Family discount' on that Ford 250. Not sure if it would work on 1,000 though but we can try!

 

[MilEME09]

We already use the F250 in a ARes for a few things including MRT's, I wouldn't recommend them, throwing a giant workshop on the back of a 250 makes them top heavy with a high center of gravity, i wouldn't recommend using them on black track in training areas. At min we need a F450 chassis if we are to use them for military purposes, a F250 is a glorified staff vehicle you can use for range control, but not as a CP, MRT, line truck etc

 

[Kirkhill]

In reality, it's more likely that a single LAV II would cost as much 4-6 Senators at least. And that's an optimistic estimate. I can see a LAV II coming in at 10x the cost of a Senator depending on certain costs.

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.

To compare a high end version of the LAV to the Senator would be ludicrous because the most of the difference in the price between the two is the cost of the turrets, weapons, comms, sights and other appurtenances permanently attached to the hull and therefore denied to the personnel carried when they dismount the vehicle and move out of sight of the vehicle.

I am proposing the 4x4 van as an administrative vehicle that serves the needs of troops, regular and reserve, in garrison.
The LAVII is a both a transport for moving troops from administrative areas to areas of threat where they can join up with fighting vehicles, as well as being sufficiently well protected (with a double v hull) to manage blast, shrapnel, small-arms and ieds associated with criminal and insurrectionist activity.

IFV/AIFVs wheeled or tracked, medium or heavy, with or without tanks, with or without integral CS SPHs is another very separate discussion. Those vehicles, those systems are, as the name suggests for fighting, and need to be retained in Canada both for training and as a threat. They also provide the lead elements of the Government's Foreign Policy Expeditionary Force - available on loan.

My thinking is that the vans and the LAV IIs along with the Bandvagns (regardless of serial) are National Defence vehicles that provide for administration, training and emergency preparedness, as well as, providing the means to support the fighting vehicles in the field. The National Defence vehicles then become Lines of Communication vehicles reaching from relatively safe and sheltered administrative areas to the maintenance areas of the battle area where the fighting vehicles reign.

....

Senators do not have suites of exquisite weaponry.


The Patria Common Armoured Vehicles (6x6), which are also amphibious, like the Senators, are bare bones transports and they are priced somewhere close to 1 million USD apiece when produced in small batches

....

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

Sweden receives first batch of Patria 6x6 APCs | Shephard

The Patria 6x6 is being developed as a common base platform for the Estonian, Finnish and Latvian armed forces, all of which require a new protected mobility vehicle, with Sweden ordering an initial 20.

www.shephardmedia.com

Estonian Army receives first 50 of 230 light armoured vehicles | Shephard

The armoured vehicles are fitted with 12.7mm heavy machine guns and came off the production line with specific Estonian requirements. Only the communications subsystems and some other minor equipment were added to vehicles in Estonia.

www.shephardmedia.com

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

The Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) have agreed to purchase Patria 6x6 armoured vehicles under the multinational Finland-led CAVS programme that also includes Germany, Latvia and Sweden.

In addition to the vehicles, the contract also covers spare parts and tools as well as operational and maintenance training, plus a purchase option for 70 more vehicles.

Deliveries of the CAVS platforms will begin during 2023.

The FDF acquired three pre-series vehicles in 2022 which were used for trials ahead of the order. During the test phase, the Finnish Army was familiarise to itself with the features and operational use of the Patria 6x6, as well as defining the final requirements for the serial order.

CAVS's origins date back to December 2019 when Estonia, Finland and Latvia signed an LoI to undertake joint development of a common vehicle based on Patria's 6x6 APC design.

The Finnish MoD then announced in August 2021 that it planned to sign a contract this year for delivery of 160 vehicles.

Shephard Defence Insight reports that the Finnish Army wants APC, command and control, medevac, heavy mortar carrier and recovery versions of the vehicle. A Finnish Army spokesperson has stated that the new platform will be operated into the 2040s.

Few detailed technical requirements for the platform have been outlined by any of the partner countries, but increased tactical mobility and deployability over platforms currently in service are believed to be key drivers behind this requirement.

The decision to partake in a joint development programme has been informed by considerations concerning cost, security of supply and interoperability.

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.

Programme timeline​

Since the platform is already in production for Latvia, and given that Latvian deliveries were able to begin within the same year that a contract was signed, the first deliveries of Finnish vehicles are expected to also take place in 2023, according to the Finnish MoD.

If deliveries take place at the same rate as those for Latvia, which are scheduled to end in 2029, then Finnish deliveries could be completed within four years by 2026.