Slovenian soldiers fire the Spike LR anti-tank missile. (US Dept. of Defense photo)

By David Pugliese

On Nov. 26 the National Post newspaper reported that Canada was having problems with its recently ordered Spike anti-tank missiles.

There had been suggestions in the House of Commons that the missiles weren’t accurate.

Rafale, the manufacturer of the Spike LR2 missiles, has not responded to requests for comment.

During the Nov. 28 Standing Committee on National Defence, procurement minister Jean-Yves Duclos did not answer questions about the ongoing problems. Instead he pointed to the Liberal government’s commitment to procuring new equipment for the Canadian Forces.

So what is happening?

Here is what we know so far.

More than half of the new anti-tank missiles provided to the Canadian military during initial testing didn’t function properly, the Department of National Defence has confirmed.

The federal government spent U.S. $32 million ($45 million Canadian) to purchase Spike anti-tank missiles for use by Canadian Forces personnel in Latvia. The deal also includes simulators. DND spokesman Kened Sadiku noted that “Due to operational security, the total number of units to be acquired cannot be disclosed.”

The National Post did report that DND is considering cancelling the Spike contract.

But as I reported in the Ottawa Citizen, DND spokesman Nick Drescher Brown said that is not true; the contract with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Israeli company, is still in place.

But DND has acknowledged ongoing problems with the Spike LR2 missiles.

“During Initial Cadre Training conducted by the company on July 15-16, 2024, five out of eight missiles experienced functionality issues,” Drescher Brown confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen. “We continue to work closely with the equipment manufacturer to identify and address the root cause of these issues.”

Drescher Brown did not go into detail about the specific problems affecting the missiles. But he noted that no one was injured nor were there any safety concerns associated with the firings. “All safety protocols built into the equipment performed exactly as expected,” he added.

In February 2023, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian Army was fast-tracking its purchase of the anti-tank weapons as well as air defence systems for troops stationed in Latvia. The equipment was classified as an Urgent Operational Requirement, the same process used during the Afghanistan war to quickly obtain gear without going through the slower traditional procurement procedures.

Drescher Brown said in the interest of getting the new missiles quickly for the Latvia mission, no live-fire tests or demonstrations were performed during the selection process. “This technical risk was assessed and deemed acceptable as all of the potential bidders had delivered thousands of units of this product to other customers by that point in time,” he added.

This is indeed accurate. Both Spike and Javelin missiles are in service with multiple nations. Javelin has been used extensively in Ukraine while Spike variants have been used in conflicts in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon and during the second Nagorno-Karabakh war.

The ongoing issues with Spike affect both the missiles and launchers.

“While deliveries of these new systems for deployed Canadian Battle Group members in Latvia has been delayed slightly, until the equipment manufacturer implements the required changes to ensure that these systems function as intended, full operational capability remains on schedule for January 2026,” Drescher Brown added.

No details were provided by DND on when the needed changes for the Spike systems are expected to be completed.

Once the issues are ironed out, the missiles would be a welcome addition to the Canadian Army arsenal. The SPIKE LR2 is an advanced state-of-the-art fifth generation multipurpose multi-platform missile. The LR2 has enhanced engagement range; enhanced lethality as well as weight reduction in both of the missile and the launcher.

For the enhanced lethality the LR2 includes two warhead configurations: a tandem HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead configuration, improving the armour penetration capability by more than 30 per cent; and a new multipurpose blast warhead that includes controlled fusing for regulating the desired effect, according to the company that produces the system. The system’s operator can select a “breach mode” - the new warhead can breach up to 20 centimetres of reinforced concrete and detonate within the structure.

National Defence referred to the anti-tank missile acquisition as being for a Portable Anti “X” Missile. “The “X” name in Portable Anti “X” Missile was created by the Canadian Army to represent the capability of this weapon system and its effectiveness against armoured vehicles, buildings and structures as well as combatants. X is used to refer to its multiple capabilities, including anti-armour, anti-structure and anti-personnel.”

The request for Proposal for the PAXM UOR did not have specific Canadian Content Policy or Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy requirements. As a result there are no contractual requirements for Rafale to leverage Canadian firms for the completion of this contract, according to DND. They may choose to invest or leverage Canadian firms as they see fit, however there is no obligation to report it through the duration.

The Ukraine war has highlighted Canada’s gap in modern anti-tank weapons. In news media interviews at the beginning of the conflict, retired Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier complained about the Canadian Army’s reliance on aging Carl Gustaf anti-tank systems and its lack of modern anti-tank weapons.

What Hillier neglected to mention was that when he was CDS, the then Liberal government had approved $194 million for the purchase of either the Javelin or the Spike missile systems. Companies put their bids in to provide 840 missiles and more than 100 firing systems. Test firings of both weapons was conducted. But a year later the bids were rejected as the Army claimed it didn’t have enough information to figure out whether the weapons would be effective on the battlefield. This decision was made despite the fact that both systems were already fielded in other militaries and reportedly effective. In the end, the Canadian anti-tank missile project went by the wayside.