I'll believe it when I see it.
Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 9,597
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 9,597
- Points
- 1,160
As per ....
...
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).
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
...
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).
- Reaction score
- 24,267
- Points
- 1,260
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...
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,929
- Points
- 1,260
F&ck - we’ll buy 65 and then dither for the next 4-6yrs and end up with only 65 and nothing else.
- Reaction score
- 31,101
- Points
- 1,090
If it means retiring Fighter Pilots have fewer opportunities to cash in, maybe that's a good thing.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,929
- Points
- 1,260
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
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 496
- Points
- 880
- Reaction score
- 24,267
- Points
- 1,260
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.
Similar threads
