Happy Friday!

It's another Let's Talk! Today! And officially our longest yet at basically 55 questions and nearly 10,000 words! I wanted to try and get everything in. I think I did. Admittedly this one was really hard. This week has burnt me out a lot.

But I felt bad for you guys. You guys deserve this, and I feel I was lacking this week. Minimal notes, no projwct post this week. I felt I was really not living to my standard, and I know you guys love the Q&A, so I pushed through and got it done! And I am very happy about that (and proud)

I also did more Colours because I can and its whinsical and fun. If you guys like color-coding importsnt info, I'll keep doing it!

As always you can find the link to next weeks Q&A over here on Slido. I encourage you to ask as much as you like!

Q1. Ref the most recent Let's Talk RE: LUV. You mentioned the team still doesn't know what it wants. How is this possible a decade and a half in? Scope creep? Reboot?

I mean, imagine you're asked to replace both the Milverado and G-Wagon with a new 4x4 fleet, a fleet that needs to offer some level of better protection, preferably some level of commonality, and serve as the primary B Vehicle across the army.

Keep in mind also for a long time that suppliers were looking to fulfill both requirements. LUV is an SSE project. It has existed for nearly a decade, before Ukraine, before Armenia, and coming out of the Afghanistan environment with the Afghanistan mentality.

COVID hit and everything slowed, everything hit a roadblock. Ukraine happened, and suddenly the environment had changed on us and we needed to start talking again about a peer conflict. The Army initiated a mass reorganization and modernization, one that's still ongoing mind you, and one that is still in the process of figuring out what the future Warfighting Concept looks like.

Things changed, and with it so did LUV. The requirements changed, the urgency; it was split into phases, had to carry through COVID, and had to deal with an Army still trying to figure out what it is and what it wants to be.

Keep in mind that everyone will have a different opinion on what a G-Wagon replacement is, what size it should be, what level of protection it needs, whether a commercial chassis is viable, etc. There are plenty who think LUV should just be a commercial pickup truck and nothing more. There are also many who want a STANAG IV MRAP, because that's what they see as the minimum protection needed.

And most fall in the middle of that. Scope creep? Not really... requirements haven't changed much. Changing times, a modernizing army, and plenty of personal philosophy are to blame for LUV still trying to figure itself out. None of which is on anyone, IMO. This is just the case of a project where there are many avenues on the table, and we haven't figured out what path is best.

Q2. Do we have any indication on what the CPSP class name will be?

No. That is up to the naming committee folks to figure out. For surface vessels we have history and guidelines in place that help narrow down the options, but for submarines it's a bit more open. I have heard a few: Fish, Values, Islands. Sea Mammals one dude really wants.

There's less precedent there, though Indigenous names these days are almost entirely off the table, so I wouldn't think too much on them. I don't think we see cities or provinces either. I think Fish, Values, and maybe Islands are the most likely? It will for sure be hotly contested.

Q3. How would the ASW on a CDC compare to a Halifax's capability?

Still up in the air at this time. We don't have requirements, nor do we know what sort of sensors will fully be mandated. We know CDC will have a Hull-Mounted Sonar, which is a great addition I am happy to see, but again, not all sonar are created equal and we don't know what technologies or capabilities might be desired there, just that it exists.

We don't know if they'll be required to have an integrated towed array, or if they maybe download that to a container like COBRA. We know they won't have a hangar for an ASW helicopter like a Cyclone or such. They'll rely primarily on uncrewed systems, which by this point is probably better than a Cyclone that isn't there, lol, but I digress.

I imagine they'll likely stay in the GDMS-Canada architecture. I think they want COBRA no matter what to be able to integrate into the GDMS-Canada processor. All that right now is up in the air.

So right now they might have a broadly similar suite? We know they'll have some sonar, and that's it. We have no idea on capabilities desired, if there will be a towed array, etc. So it isn't really possible for me to say right now. Part of the issue with broad requirements is that once you get into depth, you start to run into issues discussing at times.

Q4. How are you feeling about Lockheed acquiring Ultra Maritime? Do you see any large changes or advantages coming from this for Canada?

Closed on Monday, so way too soon to say on advantages or downstream effects. I am not a big fan of consolidation. I will always look at stuff like this with worry, because often there is a downsizing and redundancy period where risk exists to see cuts. Never mind that competition in the space is good: good for procurement, good for development, good for encouraging competition.

So of course I am worried how this might affect Lockheed and Ultra's Canadian operations. We often talk about these events as a concern for the company being bought, but downstream negatives are often organization-wide in nature.

There is the argument that it creates some pathways and simplicity on the River; I ain't ready to say that right now, not at all.

I have reached out to Lockheed America, yet to hear back. My immediate nature is caution and concern for what comes of this, but we are a few days out and things are relatively quiet. A lot of people didn't even notice.

So I am exercising extreme caution, but playing the waiting game in tension, like watching a bomb defusion from 10 feet away...

Q5. Will the RCN get all 12 submarines regardless of which sub is chosen?

Everyone wants 12 as far as I know: Germans, Norwegians, Feds as I know, DND, Navy; maybe not TB, who knows. There is a path there, and I am hopeful. However, that depends on negotiations.

Q6. Does Kraken Robotics' recent acquisitions give them any prospects for manufacturing their own UUV/AUVs? It seems a missing puzzle piece for Kraken.

It certainly helps if they wanted to do it. The Colveya acquisition, similar to MDA recently, adds a significant amount of IP and critical systems under Kraken's banner. SPRINT-Nav for Navigation and Positioning, BlueComm for Communications, and NaviSuite for that digital backbone are all fantastic systems as far as I know, and add a lot of renewed capability to the company's product line.

But like, I don't think they really wanna do it, honestly. I don't think they want to fully get into developing a product line of UUV. It's a fairly contested market, especially in Canada. There is fierce competition in the space, and once you get to like a Europe? It's a significant investment, especially if you want a product family stretching up to larger UUV.

Now maybe they stick to smaller AUV/UUV. Entirely possible. I haven't seen the indication there fully. The company seems more than happy to play supplier and integrator. That is still a very important and significant spot to be. It is still a power position for them, and the opportunities are there for a UUV designer to buy into the Kraken ecosystem for critical components, batteries, etc.

There is value in being that person, where you ain't fully focused on the whole product, but offering industry someone who has all the tools to get there. I think they're fairly happy being there, in that position, over competing with the likes of Cellula, Kongsberg, etc.

Q7. While the unmanned mothership that the AOPS are turning into is great, it paints a larger target on them. Are there any plans to add electronic or softkill CMs?

There are talks, as always, to what upgrades could be put on the AOPS, with the recognition they ain't warships and will never be positioned as ones. They will always have a limit to what we put on them, but yes, survivability enhancements are part of that vision.

What they are? I can't say. EW is an area the navy is looking at everyone for, so I think you'll be happy there. There are very configurable and small-scale drone-on-drone systems available on the market these days for CUAS that the navy is really interested in. ASTY has a MARSS NIDAR on it that has a drone interceptor that's gotten a lot of attention.

The plans as I know are still early, so there isn't much detail floating around; no projects I know specifically for AOPS Survivability. There is some hype for containerized systems to add capability, that COULD have some value, but less in the EW and Soft-kill environment.

So it is discussed, just a bit early at the moment to say what.

Q8. Will the North Bay bunker be reactivated (likely no)? Also, how are the munition bunkers across the country doing, and will they be updated/replaced?

If they have any plans, in any timeline, for North Bay, I'll personally buy every one of you a drink. As for munition storage, you're in luck! We actually have a few, including a big one on the books. The question to how they're doing? Ehhhh, a lot of the Cold War vintage buildings are in rough shape and are increasingly failing to meet modern standards.

Dundurn has the Magazine Area Recapitalization project on the books. That will demolish the existing ammunition storage and construct new storage facilities. The telecommunications hub, temporary carpentry shop, and ammunition demilitarization processing facility are to also be demolished, and new facilities built in their place. Also, some sewer and road upgrades are in there too. That's slowly moving through the process.

All that falls under the Ammunition Capability Expansion Program (ACE-P). This is the long-term program to fix and expand ammunition storage across the country, with 1.5 billion allocated over the next five years and 5.8 billion out to 2045, making it one of the largest individual infrastructure projects on the books. Fun fact.

It covers five sites. Dundurn gets the major recapitalization as above, Angus gets new storage and compounds, Shilo gets a magazine expansion, Trenton gets strategic storage, and the Halifax/Bedford depot gets upgrades.

The whole program is built around earth-covered magazines, which are the modern standard for ammunition storage. Modern munitions are sadly bound to standards that those older buildings increasingly can't meet.

Modern munitions come with increasingly complex electronics and energetics that need climate control, humidity management, and proper compatibility separation, none of which the Cold War vintage infrastructure was designed for.

ACE-P lacks a lot of details that I know of. I can't say how extensive things will be, but there are at least significant plans in development to support platforms like HIMARS, IFM, and the future Tanks. All of which demand increasingly more infrastructure in place, especially when trying to build war stock of munitions.

Q9. Do you think other procurement decisions and projects could start moving faster once CPSP and the fighter review are over with?

AHHHH, careful. The Fighter Review is not a procurement. There is no procurement outcome that comes from the Fighter Review, merely a set of recommendations for the government to follow. That could include the recommendation to enter negotiations with a single supplier like Saab, could recommend a competition, but careful conflating the Fighter Review to a procurement. Two different things, and the effects on the wider system are both affecting different ends.

Anytime a big project closes, it frees up staff. There is a serious problem getting enough people to staff projects, so something like CPSP, a pretty big project with lots of people attached, is gonna be felt really hard in a constrained system where people are needed. Same for the AOPV closing out. Those people move to places like CDC.

Fighter Review is again not a project. It is not a procurement on the books. Its effects are felt in places like the DIA, but I can't say to how much resources or time is being dedicated to it specifically. I would say its impact, once done, will be felt, but not as noticeable as one might believe. It isn't something I believe is holding up other things as significantly as one might believe.

Q10. Is it possible that the number of CSC hulls gets cut like other Type 26 users are considering doing or have already done? Maybe in favor of more CDC hulls?

I mean, the future is a strange place, full of strange and silly people doing strange and silly things. Any project that stretched twenty years into the future will obviously have risk. Right now the chances are severely low. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have committed to fifteen Rivers. They have shown no sign of change.

So the chances of a cut in the next few years is unlikely, unless the Navy fleet mix shifts significantly? I don't see it in the next couple years. That can change a decade out; no one can predict a decade out.

I don't see it as likely happening. Possible, but very, very unlikely.

Q11. Do you know how many Gripens we would need to buy for Saab to build them in Canada?

Saab has said 72 are needed to make domestic production viable. I imagine there is flexibility there. In any cases like this, the procurement of GlobalEye and Gripen would likely be part of a broader Strategic Partnership between Sweden and Canada, and might include more than just those two (I hope it is many Giraffe) platforms.

In those kinds of G2G negotiations, numbers like above become part of a much broader set of negotiations that can quickly throw them out the window, so we are put in a situation where that final number of a minimum could be different when paired with other commitments or agreements.

In any case, Saab gave their number at 72. That's the best we could have to work under, assuming Gripen is selected. As far as I know, the review hasn't drafted recommendations yet.

Q12. Just wanting clarification: even if the Type 212CD is probably better at littoral, it is still designed to be highly capable in blue water, right?

Okay. Let me clarify again, because this does come up a lot and I think that people get a bit confused by definitions and such. I think many hear the term Littoral and assume Coastal, but that isn't the case.

While the 212CD is designed to be primarily survivable in Littoral and contested environments, that doesn't limit it to being a littoral platform. What it does is sacrifice aspects of Oceanic performance to better improve survivability.

The use of Amanox steel for magnetic protection directly hinders depth performance compared to a High Yield Submarine. That's metallurgy. The Diamond-Shaped hull affects drag on the sub at high speeds that taxes passive noise and endurance. How much? I don't know, because that's classified information to all of us.

The 212CD has a range exceeding 8000nm. It has an endurance exceeding five weeks. Both it and the KSS-III have more concern with available stores than anything when discussing their theoretical maximums. Modern AIP/Li-ion Submarines are monsters.

While not optimized for an open-ocean environment, never conflate that to can't or won't. The CD at the end of the day will still be a highly capable submarine with the range and endurance to operate in open ocean, and likely do perfectly fine in that environment. Same as the KSS-III could operate in the Arctic fine, but isn't optimized as well as the 212CD might be.

That comes with the natural tradeoffs of choosing platforms optimized for certain environments. It also comes with acknowledging that this question can get quite deep, but we ain't gonna compare battery cells here, lol.

Q13. Can you expand on the deal being offered by Lockorsky to replace the Cyclones? Would this just be a discount or a 1 to 1 replacement at cost?

I can't fully speak to the deal, other than that it exists and had some sort of discount. Other than that? I am not privy to that information, as it was a solicitation by Lockheed to the Feds. Sadly, that information belongs to only a select few.

Also, if I did and I gossiped on very intricate details like specific financial information, I feel I would get in a lot of trouble. I feel that is very private info to leak, and would likely get a lot of people in trouble for telling me. Protecting people comes first. Info like that leaking out can be easily traced back to people. Not worth the risk on my end.

If a major paper wants to do that, because lord knows they ain't gonna get in trouble for leaks like that, then power to them, but not this boy. They'll beat my ass in.

Q14. Case for the AW159 Wildcat on CDC. Would be very beneficial in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago for ASW, ASuW. Commonality with allies UK & SK. Smaller footprint.

Commonality should come from something like nTACS, IMO. You can make the commonality case for our primary ASW helicopter, but for any sort of secondary platform, especially one for like CDC, I would be looking to align for nTACS. Admittedly, the Wildcat isn't my first choice there.

I think in most cases, if a CDC needs an ASW helicopter, then that could fall on the likely future Romeo, which won't be often, and for something below that? Honestly, I think a small platform like the H145M could do extremely well. A maritime variant exists; it provides a fairly capable Anti-Surface capability for its size. An extremely flexible platform that can be rapidly configured for a multitude of different roles, built with Manned-Unmanned Teaming already a focus, which for a platform like CDC that wants to leverage Autonomous Systems.

Would also be great for something like the AOPS, IMO. I just don't know if CDC needs an ASW platform like Wildcat. If we get a second Maritime Helicopter, my idea is something small, cheap, and highly flexible.

Q15. For nTACS medium-lift helicopter, I can only think of the H160M and H175M. Are there other options that can compete?

In the Airbus lineup? Because companies like Bell, Leonardo, and Lockorsky all have options that could fit. AW149, MV-75, etc. Airbus is focusing on advertising the 175M to fulfill our requirements. We're looking more increasingly in the Super-Medium category, but until we have an RFI, it is hard to say exactly what is wanted.

My expectation talking is in the Super-Medium category, which leaves Airbus with the 175M. They have options, because the 160M could still fit if Blackhawk can, but Airbus is choosing to focus on the 175M. The H225M is too big for what nTACS is looking for, despite one specific person here really, really wanting it. You know who you are.

Q16. What would you name our future submarine fleet class and our future corvette class?

I like Islands for CDC. I just really like Islands, so I think it would be really cool. Submarines I don't fully know yet what I would like? I could see Fish, but I don't really like it, but the idea of a submarine named Tuna is also too hilarious to just ignore, honestly. It's almost too perfect for my brain. Sea Mammals could be cool, but there is some overlap with a certain other class...

I'll get back to you, lol.

Q17. Do we know how the government is planning to satisfy the Koreans after making them tapdance with CPSP for years? They have to be pretty mad about this whole thing.

They are mad, understandably. How the government plans to bring them back in the fold? I have zero idea. There ain't many projects in their favour at this time. Lost out on trainers, tough competition for HDFM and MCAV, IFM is likely a losing bet on their end.

CPSP really was the best shot they had, and winning it opened a lot of doors for other projects like the land stuff. Without that? Chances become slim. On the defence side? I don't know what avenue we could throw towards them. No matter what, the relationship doesn't reach the places it could have ever again, losing CPSP.

Q18. Aside from torpedoes, what weapons are the CAF hoping to have on the 212CD? Any tube-launched missiles (anti-ship and land attack) that are currently planned?

Both Sub-Launched Joint Strike Missile and Tyrfing are at play. I can confirm that, because I have seen the German slides that mention them, lol. Both though, as we have pointed out, carry risk, as they are not yet in-service, available munitions. They are hypotheticals.

We want a land-attack capability. It was in the RFI. That isn't disputed. How we get there and what that looks like? That's more up to debate. JSM-SL is the easy pathway; lots of other countries around are interested in it, like Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, etc., so the demand is there without the 212CD for it to be funded and developed.

Tyrfing would be a fantastic capability, but it isn't set for service until the mid-2030s, and submarines ain't the primary focus... so I'm not fully looking to it until I see better confirmation on timelines. A supersonic, Anti-Ship and Anti-Surface munition with ranges out to 1000km would go a long way to improving the current lack of munitions on the 212CD.

I know it's planned. I've seen the graphic and such, but it's still very much an early hypothetical. Would be really freaking cool, but also a decade or more out.

I suspect we'll see IDAS and SeaSpider as well, eventually.

Q19. Will the AMB program be expedited now that the shorter-range 212CD has been selected?

Y'all acting like these guys have a range of like 3000nm or something. The range ain't an issue. No one on the Navy side that I have talked with has raised it as an issue. Both platforms met the range and endurance requirements. The KSS-III has a higher range as I know it, but it ain't in the like 30, 40% range. It's smaller than most believe.

Again, 212CD has the range and Endurance to be Oceanic if it feels like. It has the endurance to remain on station up north. If AMB was accelerated for the subs, which it won't, because a sub tender it is not, and we have no idea if there will even be anything in there related to it, it would have been no matter the winner.

Q20. Will you do a separate deeper analysis on the submarine choice and your thoughts on it? I personally think that it's a good choice either company for Canada.

I will, but not anytime soon. I am tired of submarines. I have written more on subs than probably any other Canadian. I have dedicated significant portions of my life the last year to them. I want to move on and talk about other things for a while.

I wanna talk about other cool stuff. Submarines ain't as fun to talk about anymore. I have other things I would rather dedicate time to right now. Stuff like CDC, IAMD, etc.

Q21. Within a day of the CPSP decision, already talk Canada may not buy all 12 boats, and may complement with USVs such as the Australian Ghost Bat? Negotiating tactic?

It's always been up to 12, subject to negotiations. Part of that is negotiation leverage, yeah; you don't want to tell anyone you're committing to the highest end out the gate, but it's also sticking to established language instead of throwing out a blunt commitment. That is fairly standard in procurement discussion.

I can say the Feds would love 12, same the Navy. Don't treat this as a cut. I have yet to hear anyone who doesn't want 12. Until we credibly hear it will be less? Assume it is still up to 12. (Technically the wording has been 8-12, but whatever.)

We might also see batches as well, with a commitment to 12; could see 8 committed now and 4 as options to explore. I pray we commit to the full twelve. I want to see it, but there are lots of potential avenues here, ranging from awful (just 8) to not great but okay for now I guess (8+4).

Q22. Given the need for increased airlift capacity, will procuring some freighter variants of the A330 be considered in the future?

Ooooo, interesting. I think we would opt for more MRTT before anything, because we could always use more tankers, and some will argue with the growing fleet that 9 (8) ain't enough. However, the A330 is also an amazing cargo aircraft, and I could see the value of a few strictly purchased as a COTS logistics solution.

Crewing is an issue as always, though, and again, I know that the option above all is more MRTT over strict freighters. More versatile, still a demand for more refueling capacity, can still do the airlift role. However, a few freighters on hand somewhere, even two or three, is never a bad thing when considering how capable the A330 is as a cargo hauler.

Q23. Do you know how the military decides how many vehicles/vessels it needs/wants? For example, Topshee saying we need 35 combatants for the Navy.

Well, for almost every branch and capability there will be differences in how the calculation is done, so let me focus on the one you asked. How does the Navy actually land on a number like 35?

The honest answer is that it's a few different things stacked on top of each other, and they don't all pull equal weight. Policy tells the Navy what it has to do at the same time, like sustaining a task group per coast while meeting NATO and NORAD commitments. We have obligations to NATO. We have obligations in strategies, like commitments made through the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and of course we have commitments to our own security.

The second is readiness math. How much of something do you need to ensure you have enough? To keep one ship deployed, you need three or four in the rotation, because at any given moment the rest are in deep maintenance, workups, or sitting at high readiness waiting for the call.

Subs are the recent one we can give. 12 submarines means you have 4 available at any given time. That is the Rule of Thirds, lol. That number though is not universal, and certain platforms will vary. So you need to know how many you need at any given time, and work from there.

The third is NATO capability targets, which are separate here from general commitments, which assign Canada specific numbers of ships at specific readiness levels. Those are classified, so I can't tell you what they are, but they're real and they're in the room when these numbers get set.

This isn't accounting for the political side of things: will, funding, expectations that do go into these conversations. I feel that is outside what you want. Replacement Inertia is also there; you typically wanna replace capacity equally if possible, especially on the naval side. More if you can. River is 12 Halifax + 3 Iroquois, but this hopefully gives you a good, albeit very basic, idea of the logic train.

These numbers also ebb and flow with the times. If governments decide to commit more assets abroad? We have to think about that. Funny enough, a lot of the existing numbers are historical. Twelve submarines has popped up almost religiously since the 1950s. We knew 15 combatants wasn't enough throughout history.

Hell, we've tried Corvettes several times after WW2! 70s it came up, 80s, CASSEV in the 90s caused a big stir. You can find stuff like Brock's report, and you'll find a lot of funny numbers. These numbers, in many cases, ain't new. 4 JSS? That ain't new!

Q24. Can we codify CDC requirements: PC6 hull, 16-32 VLS, 8 x NSM, torpedo launchers, hull-mounted & variable depth sonar, helicopter, multi-mission bay (UAV, USV)?

We do have a graphic. Remove Torpedoes; I have never heard them discussed. VDS is also not mentioned as a requirement as I have seen; only HMS is ever mentioned. Also, be careful using Multi-Mission Bay. That is a specific thing, and might not be so defined in the requirements. Flexible space, Multi-Mission space, not a bay in these discussions.

Accommodation for Payloads and accommodations for Autonomous Systems are also linked but not the same, so you need to make the distinction. Helicopter-capable flight deck might be in there, but it isn't guaranteed. Hangar will likely be UAS only. Gotta make distinctions there as well.

Range and Endurance requirements as well are missing: 7000nm+ and 30+ days. Throw in the 25kn minimum. After you do all that, you got most of the requirements fairly well set!

Q25. Is there any discussion about replacing the multi-mission bay on the RCD Batch 1 during their upcoming refit for an additional 64 VLS? True AAW capabilities.

No.

Q26. Do you know why we have failed to run an Arctic naval base for so long? What do we keep doing wrong?

Is it what we do wrong? We messed up on Nanisivik. No one would deny it, but I want to focus on the fundamental of your question a bit, because I feel that gets to the crux of your question over lamenting the death of Nanisivik.

A naval base isn't just a facility; it's a node in a wider ecosystem. It works by drawing on the environment around it, be that labour, power, fuel, spares, a port that other things use, a town people live in. The Arctic has almost none of that. Limited grid, limited industrial base, no year-round port traffic, no mass workforce, communities of a few hundred people scattered across distances the size of Europe.

You are in one of the most inhospitable environments on Earth. The Arctic doesn't love you. It doesn't nurture. It exists in opposition to you. It exists to keep you away. It is a domain of struggle. For a naval ship, it is an environment devoid of support, full of dangers, a land barely charted, and what is, is often not to modern standards.

Every litre of diesel, every crew rotation, every bit of equipment has to come 3,000km north through a sealift window of a few weeks. You've built a permanent expedition that you now must resupply forever, whether or not anyone uses it. No matter how much you get out of it, there is always upkeep to do, always work to be done, and what do you get out of it?

Russia's Kola Peninsula is ice-free thanks to the North Atlantic currents and sits on the Northern Sea Route, Russia's economic highway. Murmansk is a city of a quarter million with rail to the interior. Norway's entire Arctic coast is almost entirely ice-free and populated. Their bases are extensions of functioning regional ecosystems that don't exist here.

What we have is an island of steel and diesel, in a place with many times no economy and few people, if people at all, all in waters that are frozen most of the year. Our presence there is always constrained by what can get there. There is no continuous demand signal to justify continuous sustainment. All of which feeds into a sustainment loop that eventually just snaps.

The places we need a naval base are also the places where these problems are further elevated. Nanisivik, and any proposal like it, is us screaming at the Earth, raging against a land that doesn't want us there, trying to carve something out of it in defiance of everything. We have built communities like that, but they are surrounded by the corpses of many that failed.

The struggle you ask about is the struggle of the North. It is one of the greatest stories of the Human Spirit, that despite it all we have been able to craft something. We have been able to form communities. We have been able to survive and thrive up there.

That's why we have AMB, though. We tried land. We tried to forge and build infrastructure. We failed. We couldn't do it. So we reject the land entirely for the only place we have left, the Sea itself.

Q27. What happened to Canada's own "Pacific pivot"? Did that basically just die before going anywhere?

One choice doesn't erase everything. Do not despair so much, my friend, even if your heart hurts. We still have a growing Indo-Pacific Strategy, one that is seeing our presence grow more and more. Despite the loss, we have forged several new agreements with allies like Korea and Japan.

We are stepping up and supporting allies like Taiwan and the Philippines through things like the Dark Vessel Detection Program, as well as new agreements like our Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines. We have a new Defence Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia, a growing partnership with our cousins in Australia, including a recent Global purchase in support of border security. We have an ASEAN Free Trade Agreement in the final stages.

The Pivot is not dead, hit here, yes, but there are still so many wonderful things ongoing. We are still helping our friends in other ways, ways they see and appreciate. Remember, right now there are Canadian aircraft flying to support our friends in the Philippines, satellites supporting our friends in Taiwan, there is a Canadian company ready to help Japan build out its LEO network, there are Canadian ships there now.

We are still there. We will keep being there, and no one decision erases that.

Q28. 50+ questions, wow! Cyclone's problems. Norway and Australia retired their NH90s early due to similar challenges. Might this form the basis for Canada to do?

Maybe. The basis has always been there, just up to cabinet to take that leap and push through. It is a tough choice to admit a fault, but this government has been surprisingly open to admitting failures and just abandoning shit if they feel. That is a good thing, IMO.

I'm happy they seem able to just make these kinds of calls, so maybe there is a path.

Q29. TKMS design wins! Too many logistical and alignment positives with Ger/Nor to overlook. Now we'll see if cost & negotiations result in the desired 12-boat fleet.

I am confident we will. Need to have some faith! I believe collective hope and positivity means something to the universe. The desire is there. That's half the game in itself.

Q30. It's plausible the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) becomes a permanent fixture and Canada plays an active role? Could AMB fill that role, or new asset required?

It's possible. I ain't holding out to the JEF. I would like to see deeper, something more ingrained, built of common frameworks, procurement, and ecosystems that don't just support but build each other. I don't know if that's possible for us as I imagine; maybe a bit fantastical, but I do often think about it.

Getting into the JEF is a political win, I will admit. I think there is value in being involved and having presence, especially if most of our Northern Allies are all falling under its banner. Even if it isn't my vision, it is still something that plays a role in building the basis and conversation.

AMB is an interesting concept here. It is inherently designed for our Arctic, not the European Arctic as our allies know. The value though is in the platform itself, but sadly we don't know what that value is until we know the platform as a concept.

At the least, many of the allies we share commonality with or are trying to build deep cooperation with, like the UK, Norway, and Sweden, are in it. Same the Baltics, who are now becoming a larger focal point of our European presence. Arctic allies like Iceland and Denmark, who are vital partners to our Arctic, are also there.

Q30. This era is called The Time of Rupture.

Very ominous. Much better than my "Big Money Spend Era". Speaking of Big Money, perfect time for This weeks Sponsors.

Q31. If Bombardier finishes the air-to-air refueling, will it be integrated to the GlobalEye if we commit to buying it?

That's the plan. The idea is our Global, at least on the Federal side, will benefit from AAR, and taking that leap will make the Global more competitive across the board in future competitions. How well along Bombardier is to that? No clue. Funny enough, L3 had been pursuing an AAR capability for AERIS-X anyways, so the basis of it is built off the platform we rejected. Irony, I guess.

Q32. If the CH-148 is so bad and more expensive, are there plans or a future project to replace it coming relatively soon?

We do have a Maritime Helicopter Upgrade project on the books. The fact is that the Federal Government rarely likes to admit its mistakes, and that they were wrong. As such, we get stuck with things like this dragging out, forced to either die a death by a thousand cuts or fall apart to the point there is no choice, if there is a choice. Sometimes things fail and we abandon capabilities altogether!

That isn't as much the case anymore, not this government really. However, it's the reason we have stuck by Cyclone despite everything. The Navy has no working helicopter, Air Force don't want it, project won't reach FOC until 2029 at best, over 20 years after the contract was signed. Lockheed is losing a fuckton on it.

MHU will give us the path. It is, essentially, the referendum on Cyclone. If we move through with Cyclone? We're stuck with it until the early 2040s at least.

Q33. Could Canada join the UK-Dutch Arctic amphibious ship program by developing an Arctic Mobile Base variant with a shared hull and Canadian modifications?

Ehhhh, careful. That isn't always the best idea with ships like this. Keep in mind that AMB has no requirements, and this new Amphibious Assault Ship also has no confirmed design. We have literally nothing to go off but general size and basic info.

What we do know is the UK-Dutch program is looking for a smaller, ~15000t, Amphibious Vessel. That alone makes it a bit of an opposite to our demands. AMB is likely to not be a pure Amphibious vessel. It will very likely be a multi-role platform with SOME Amphibious capability.

How that looks is up in the air, because traditional Amphibious facilities, like a well deck as you imagine, don't do well in an Ice-covered Arctic. Neither do Traditional landing craft. Something like a Steel Beach, like on the Dutch Karel Doorman, MIGHT be a potential avenue, but already there are some differences.

Big issue: you can't turn a random Amphibious Vessel into a PC 3 or PC 2 class vessel, especially if it's a flattop. That is a non-starter. A Polar Class ship requires certain levels of hull thickness, frame spacing, and specialized steel that can't just be slapped onto a design. That isn't getting into the Propulsion or the Machinery Redundancy.

It edges into impossibility very quickly. If we assume that AMB needs to have some level of endurance and range similar to the Polar Icebreakers, then you're also constrained to a certain platform that this hypothetical doesn't provide.

The Dutch-UK want an amphibious vessel. We want a multi-role platform with amphibious capabilities that don't fully exist now, because you're asking for an amphibious capability for a region that traditional methods don't work in.

You can read here if you want the in-depth, because I go into the topic at length. This is mostly me hitting the basics. It isn't possible in the current forms. I would say impossible for this to be the case with what we know. They're two different platforms, with only vague resemblance.

Q34. Do you ever see Canada producing subs like Japan does? A new hull every few years to keep current and have the capabilities.

No. I think that'll remain out of our scopes. The math almost always works against submarines, and there is value building up as a Tier-II partner over the main constructor, especially if you're producing modules or sections.

I think it's better to accept some things outside our scope, and accept this is one area where we're better playing partner than lead. We got a lot more cool things to build and specialize in, lol.

Q35. Is the Type 212CD range for Canada an actual concern from the Navy capability-wise, or just by non-military Canadians?

Not a concern for the Navy. Both exceeded their wants from talking around. 212CD does what we need and then some. Modern AIP/Li-ion Submarines are, again, monsters compared to what was around even fifteen years ago. The rapid advancement of battery technology over the last fifteen years has fundamentally shifted the game, and it ain't the ceiling.

Q36. Can Canada help develop and produce IDAS, JSM-SL, 3SM Tyrfing SL in the future, and do you see a chance we will with the other torpedoes we'll produce?

I mean, in an ideal world I would love it. If I am the DIA, I am arguing for NSM at least, especially in a future with CDC and a JSM-SL. I think the demand on our end would be there; also, we do have leverage to some degree to push around a bit. However, that is my wishful brain.

The reality is that it would require either significant logistics to import the necessary parts, or we would be building our supply chain. That isn't impossible, Australia shows us it isn't, but they have a missile agency, billions of funding, and a collective desire to get it done.

It would take years of development and effort, would likely require federal investment, but I think it would be worth it. The commitment to Torpedo production already helps build some, but far from all, of that supply chain.

I consider NSM a critical munition. It is one of my Holy 12 that I think we should be able to do here, more vaguely an anti-ship missile, but whatever. I accept also reality is not so simple. Demand, regulations, existing supply chain, investment needed, etc. all play a significant role here.

I would love to see it. I think it should be tried as an offset, but I acknowledge it will be a significant road.

Q37. Does Canada have a future sealift project in discussion or on the books in the long future?

The closest we have is AMB, if you count its amphibious capabilities. Other than that? No defence-related Sealift on the books. Although you can read my opinions on Sealift and petition for my ideas and mine alone to be made policy

Q38. I mourn the loss of KSS-III, but recognize TKMS might be a better partner for ongoing development. We may end up helping lead the evolution of an excellent sub.

That's a very positive outlook, and I welcome it after the last week. It's been a lot, after all!

Q39. Do you see Cellula making any big moves coming up?

I can't say. They are very private, but I hope they do. Opportunity is out there. Sadly, I don't know the people there too well, but they're doing great things. I wish them the best and hope they can take advantage of the UK's recent shift to Autonomous systems to get another chance there with Herne. Would also love to see more of the testing they're doing!

Q40. If we were to purchase a sealift support vessel similar to what you wrote we'd probably need, how many would we purchase to have a good fleet size?

3-4 in my books is fairly good. I imagine we could get by with three, as that provides at least one on notice if we concentrate on the East Coast where the demand primarily is. Adding a fourth to have one on station on the West Coast I feel also isn't bad, but also I don't see this as a navy thing.

I would see this either as government-held assets that could do the defence role, or some sort of P3 arrangement. Either way, if you don't care about the West Coast and Defence is the focus? Three should suffice. Add a fourth for one on the West, two for availability. That's my sort of on-the-spot thought.

Q41. Do you have any insights on Canada joining the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)? It's quite apparent that Canada wants a closer relationship with Arctic allies.

See above!

Q42. Thoughts on when the full 212CD sonar suite will be public? Will it have a flank sonar array? What about a towed array? I don't think the 212A has a tail.

Will have a Flank, I believe; no clue on the others. I imagine it will be soon, given we are coming increasingly close to launching the first. It's one of those areas still being worked on, last I checked. I have asked, had not gotten an answer. I hope soon, so I can write about it. No clue who they're pegging to do it, be that Atlas or someone else like ELAC SONAR. Keep an eye on MLU for the 212A also.

Q43. I don't know if you can win NATO. But if it is possible, I think Canada just pulled it off.

I think we all did. Great showing amongst allies. Great night for collective defence all around! Certainly we did great, and I don't even think we're in the top five for winners, lol. That's a good thing though; when everyone is a big winner, imagine what that says for the Alliance!

Q44. FFCP is the hottest defence procurement topic besides CPSP. Now that CUSMA talks are shaky, what is holding up the announcement? Will we know this year?

Review ain't done yet. When it is, they'll say. We will know this year, I really believe. I actually think we'll know soon. It's a major review, and they're taking their time, knowing they have room to wait and ask. As far as I know, it's working along harder now than earlier in the year.

Guess we gotta wait and see. Sad truth about things is that these kinds of reviews are rarely quick.

Q45. What do you think about the Voyager D12 for DAME, with it being a little smaller but hybrid electric?

I think Voyager has done something really cool with the D12. I actually used the D12 at CANSEC as a rest stop, lol. I had a chance to sit inside, look around the console, and talk about the platform. It is the company's big charge into the defence industry proper; they got a healthy relationship with Rheinmetall that I hear is working on some really cool stuff.

It's still a developmental platform, though. It's gone through revisions the last year and they're still perfecting it. That hurts it a bit for DAME, where it is the experimental platform of the three, but I credit Voyager with developing a seemingly capable platform able to take it well to the establishment. That takes a lot, even from a company with experience.

I wish them all the best. I bet they can put up a fight. I'll have to do a proper DAME post soon though to give a proper comparison, but I was impressed by the Hybrid System they have going on there. I was worried it was far more experimental than it apparently is.

Q46. If Saab were to build Gripens in Canada, where and how would they do it? Partner with a Canadian company or build its own facility?

The plan would be to do it in collaboration with Bombardier at their existing facilities. That is the last I heard. Bombardier would build the fuselages and handle the integration work, as far as I am aware. I don't know if that involves utilizing existing facilities or if new facilities would be built on top of that? But it would be with Bombardier.

Q47. I would hurt if they went for an armoured pick-up truck. That's all well and good for Mexico, but with IED and FPV threats, I feel SENRAP is the right choice.

I also think the SENRAP is the best choice overall; however, there is utility to a more conventional truck, especially in the outlook of the 2nd Div. Not everything needs to be a SENRAP, and luckily the commonality is there where it doesn't have to be. SENLUV is a cheaper, but still scalable, common option to throw into the mix with the SENRAP. It isn't 1:1. I would like to see both.

Q48. Would we pick some designs from future rotorcraft capability designs for nTACS? Does it directly affect nTACS?

I assume you mean NATO's Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability, and no. It is not possible. Those designs are looking at the post-2035 timeline, and that is beyond nTACS. It could be an option for future rotary options, like the Cormorant fleet, or nTACS replacement down the line, but it'll be too late for nTACS. We need options available before 2030.

Q49. Does 212CD and your comments re: JSM-SL make it more likely that the unannounced customer for the recent JSM order is Canada, and does it influence the F-35 review?

Evidently, yes.

Q50. Fuhr mentioned spiral development of the 212CD going forward. Is that more likely to mean different production batches, later refits, or something else?

Batch Configuration across the hypothetical 12-boat run. Sub 12 will not be Sub 1's configuration regardless of anyone's intent; that's just how a 15-year production run works. Topshee also brought this up with Canadian content. The first few subs would be mostly MOTS, but future iterations would introduce more Canadian content over time, with the hope it becomes standard across the whole fleet.

New Batteries, Munitions, Improved Sensors, etc. will likely run on a batch basis. The Germans and Norwegians have a similar concept. First Boat might not have Lithium Batteries, but second will. Sensors will adapt and change, same with the digital side. The idea is incremental improvements.

Q51. Aircraft carrier when? :^)

At this rate we might be able to claim Prince of Wales, I don't know.

Q52. What do you know about Arcfield Canada? Any chance they'll be involved with FFCP ISS or SCM?

Fantastic company, wonderful people. The Canadian team is amazing, responsive, and always ready to engage, so they rank high on my list. They also have fantastic capabilities available to them, and a really smart team. I think the sky is the limit for them, honestly. I think they have great chances to be involved.

Q53. I've read some people want a 76mm for CDC. Other than the existing logistics of using 57mm now, is a 76mm not worth it capability-wise for CDC?

Depends on who you ask. Lots of people on both sides. On the 57 side, the pipeline is US-anchored and healthier than its reputation around. 3P programmable ammunition is the in-service mainstay and already in inventory. We have the experience on it, the supply chain.

The MK 332 HE-4G is a really cool round and already in service with the USN and available for export, and Northrop picked up a development contract for a second 57mm guided round with an onboard seeker, so there is extensive development ongoing to keep the 57mm modern.

The user base is narrow, but growing. Most of the CDC designs already assume it in their models.

On the 76, DART has been in service for over a decade and has already shown to be capable in the Red Sea. Vulcano 76 stretches reach out to around 40km, and the 4AP programmable fuze is available now.

The user base is the largest of any medium naval gun, something like 50+ navies and still growing. DART isn't just an ammo purchase, though; it needs the Strales guidance configuration on the mount, so there's a real integration step baked into that capability.

Abandoning the Leonardo guns on the River also set this back a bit. BAE gives a common ecosystem to the Rivers and aligns. That is a factor, even if most don't really discuss it too much, being separate classes. Ecosystems are important to folks like the Navy.

76 has some fantastic capabilities, but not enough to win, IMO, against the 57. I think it is the balance of everything we need out of CDC.

As always you can find the link to next weeks Q&A over here on Slido. I encourage you to ask as much as you like!

The Canadian Army today announced the completion of it's first ever FPV Training Course. Leading up to the scaling of Class I UAS under the Minerva Initiative, the Canadian Army has launched the Full Manual Uncrewed Aerial System (FMUAS) Operator Course to ensure troops are Drone-Ready. The Army released the following statement and Images in commemoration of this achievement:

TORONTO, July 09, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Volatus Aerospace Inc. (“Volatus” or the “Company”) (TSX: FLT) (OTCQX: TAKOF) (Frankfurt: ABB), a Canadian-headquartered global aerospace and defence company, is pleased to announce its participation in the Maritime & Arctic Security & Safety (MASS) Conference 2026, taking place July 13–16 at the St. John’s Convention Centre in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Presented by Saab Canada, MASS 2026 brings together industry leaders, northern representatives, government stakeholders and international partners to showcase the technologies and collaborations advancing Canada's security and sovereignty in maritime and Arctic environments.

Volatus will highlight its integrated, multi-domain portfolio, including autonomous systems, counter-uncrewed aircraft systems (C-UAS), SKYDRA, its proprietary C-UAS planning and readiness software, aerial intelligence, mission support, training, and advanced aerospace capabilities supporting defence, security, public safety, critical infrastructure protection, and industrial operations.

"Canada's Arctic and maritime regions present unique operational challenges that require innovative, resilient and multi-domain solutions," said Glen Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of Volatus. "MASS brings together the organizations and leaders shaping the future of Canada's security and sovereignty. We look forward to showcasing how Volatus combines aviation expertise, autonomy and intelligence to help customers operate effectively in some of the world's most demanding environments."

Participation in MASS 2026 reflects Volatus' continued commitment to supporting Canadian sovereignty through innovation, operational excellence and strategic partnerships that strengthen national resilience and readiness.

As demand grows for persistent intelligence, autonomous systems and mission-critical capabilities in northern and maritime environments, Volatus remains focused on delivering operationally proven, mission-ready solutions that help customers meet today's operational requirements while preparing for tomorrow's challenges.

Visitors are invited to meet the Volatus team at Booth 3 throughout the conference to learn more about the Company's capabilities, current initiatives, strategic partnerships and vision for the future of aerospace and defence.

About Volatus Aerospace Inc.

Volatus Aerospace is a Canadian-controlled global aerospace and defence company delivering integrated uncrewed systems, aerial intelligence, and mission-critical operational services. The Company provides unmanned aerial systems, aerial intelligence services, autonomy software, and advanced training solutions supporting civil infrastructure, public safety, and defence markets.

Arcfield Canada congratulates ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) on selection as the preferred bidder for Canada's Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP). This significant milestone represents an important step forward in modernizing Canada's submarine capability and strengthening the nation's long-term maritime defence and security.

This milestone marks the beginning of a transformational capability for the Royal Canadian Navy and represents a significant investment in Canada's long-term defence, security, and sovereign maritime capability. As the program advances toward contract award and fleet delivery, the focus will increasingly shift toward ensuring the submarines remain operationally ready throughout their service life.

As a leading provider of sovereign sustainment and mission-support services to Canada's defence enterprise, Arcfield Canada looks forward to continued discussions with TKMS to deliver a proven, low-risk, and integrated sustainment solution that ensures long-term operational readiness and aligns with Canada's defence and economic priorities.

The Canadian Patrol Submarine Project represents a generational opportunity to build not only a new fleet, but also a lasting sovereign sustainment capability that will support Canada's national security while creating high-value jobs, advancing technical expertise, and strengthening Canada's defence capacity for decades to come.

To learn more about our Arcfield Canada’s capabilities visit www.arcfield.ca

OTTAWA, Canada, July 09, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- CCC is pleased to announce it has been awarded a contract by the United States Department of War (U.S. DoW) to deliver replacement components for a Rheinmetall Canada’s MSU-200NAV, which is used by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to start aircraft engines while on the ground.

Through CCC’s contract, Rheinmetall Canada will provide the Naval Air Warfare Center with replacements for two key components of the MSU-200NAV – the starter, which initiates the turbine operation, and the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), which manages the turbine performance, sequencing, and safety.

Rheinmetall Canada is a long‑standing Canadian leader in aerospace ground support technologies, with deep engineering expertise and a proven track record of providing advanced, dependable solutions to U.S. and allied defence customers. Based in Ottawa, the company has supported the development, modernization, and sustainment of the MSU‑200NAV for more than two decades, ensuring this critical capability continues to meet the demanding aircraft ground support requirements of their international customers.

CCC is the designated contracting authority for purchases by the U.S. DOW from Canada worth USD $350,000 or more. Through its free U.S. DoD Prime Contractor service, CCC enables companies like Rheinmetall Canada to deliver made-in-Canada solutions to the U.S. DOW.

To learn more, contact the CCC team.

Canadore College has been awarded a contract to deliver a three-week Aircraft Maintenance training program for Royal Canadian Air Cadets this summer, renewing a valued relationship that has helped introduce young Canadians to careers in skilled-trades relating to aviation for more than a decade.

Beginning July 13, 2026, the program will welcome 20 Air Cadets from across the country to Canadore's Aviation Campus in North Bay, where participants will receive hands-on training and exposure to the aircraft maintenance industry. As a designated Military Connected College, Canadore is committed to supporting members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans, military families, and youth programs that help develop future leaders and skilled professionals.

The program is being delivered in collaboration with the Canadian Cadet Organizations and builds on Canadore's long history of supporting cadet training programs and aviation education in Northern Ontario.

"We are thrilled to welcome cadets back to Canadore College this summer," said Deidre Bannerman, Dean of the Centre of Academic Excellence and Lifelong Learning. "This program reflects the best of what post-secondary institutions and the Canadian Armed Forces can accomplish together - giving young Canadians meaningful, career-relevant aviation experience in a supportive and inspiring environment."

Throughout the three-week program, cadets will participate in educational and practical learning activities focused on aviation theory, aircraft structures and systems, standard maintenance practices, inspections, servicing procedures, and skilled trades associated with the aviation sector. The program will exposure cadets to career pathways in aviation, including opportunities in technical trades, apprenticeship programs, and related workforce development fields, while providing an aviation experience in a supportive and inspiring environment.

"Canadore's Aviation Campus is built around experiential learning, and this program gives cadets a firsthand look at what a career in aviation can offer," said Lianne Girard, Chair, Aviation and Aerospace Technology at Canadore College. "We're excited to share our facilities, expertise, and passion for the industry with the next generation of aviation professionals."

The initiative provides cadets with an opportunity to gain technical knowledge and skills while exploring potential career pathways within Canada's growing aviation industry.

"Being selected for this training is an amazing chance to be involved in a new program," said Flight Sergeant Thomas Graham, an Air Cadet from 299 Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron located in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. "I am really excited to get hands-on experience working on aircraft that I can share with the junior cadets at my home unit inside and outside the classroom."

Canadore College's Aviation Campus is home to one of Canada's leading aviation training centres, offering programs in aircraft maintenance, avionics, aviation technology, and related fields

Noah Note: Fantastic news! Such a wonderful program, and a wonderful opportunity to the Cadets who will participate. You love to see it.

July 8, 2026 – Ankara, Türkiye – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

The Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, concluded a successful visit to Türkiye, where he accompanied Prime Minister Mark Carney to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Leaders Summit.

At this year’s Summit, the Minister reaffirmed Canada’s strong commitment to NATO, collective defence, and transatlantic security at a time of heightened global instability. Discussions with Allies focused on strengthening deterrence and defence, increasing readiness, and remaining prepared to respond to evolving threats.

The Minister participated in high-level Summit sessions and held bilateral meetings to advance Canada’s defence priorities, including strengthening cooperation with Allies, reinforcing NATO’s eastern and northern flanks, and enhancing maritime security.

During a bilateral meeting with Türkiye’s Minister of National Defence, Yaşar Güler, the Ministers signed a Statement of Intent to enhance bilateral defence cooperation between the two countries. This agreement establishes a framework to expand collaboration in areas of mutual interest, including military-to-military dialogue, operational support, and the potential development of a defence industrial cooperation agreement, contributing to the security of the Alliance.

In discussions with France’s Minister of the Armed Forces, Catherine Vautrin, Minister McGuinty signed an Arrangement technique pour le Conseil franco-canadien de coopération en matière de défense. This arrangement builds on the Canada-France Security and Defence Partnership (2024) and the Feuille de route (2026). This renewed cooperative framework will maintain momentum on enhanced dialogue, interoperability, science and technology collaboration, military cooperation, and capability development.

The Minister also announced that Iceland will join the Maritime Security Partnership, an initiative that brings together Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway to strengthen maritime domain awareness, improve information sharing, and enhance coordination across the North Atlantic. The membership expansion underscores Canada’s role in promoting stability and security in northern and transatlantic waters.

Canada has joined Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom in reinforcing their commitment to greater maritime burden sharing for deterrence and defence in the North Atlantic, Baltic Sea, and Arctic Ocean. In response to the increasingly challenging security environment and the long-term threat posed by Russia, Allies will expand modern maritime capabilities, enhance training and operations, strengthen command-and-control and situational awareness, and reinforce NATO unity and collective security.

Canada continues to play a leadership role within NATO and remains committed to working closely with Allies and partners to uphold international peace and security, defend shared values, and address emerging threats. Through Operation REASSURANCE, Canada maintains its largest sustained military presence in Europe in more than 30 years, demonstrating its enduring commitment to NATO’s deterrence and defence posture on the Alliance’s Eastern Flank. As the Framework Nation for NATO’s Forward Land Forces in Latvia, and now the third Framework Nation of Multinational Division North (MND-N), Canada is taking on greater responsibility to reinforce NATO’s Eastern Flank, strengthen collective defence, and contribute to security and stability across the Euro-Atlantic region.

As an Arctic nation and founding member of NATO, Canada is also working with Allies to strengthen awareness, deterrence, and defence in the Arctic, while contributing to continental defence. Throughout the year, Canadian Armed Forces operations in the Arctic and the North are conducted in coordination with NATO activities, including enhanced Vigilance Activity ARCTIC SENTRY, in support of Canada’s role in continental defence. Together, these efforts reinforce Canada’s sovereignty and security interests and support stability across the region.

Quotes

Quick facts

• NATO is a cornerstone of Canada’s international security policy. Canada steadfastly supports NATO’s principle of collective defence by providing direct support to NATO missions and operations.

• Canada remains committed to maintaining and strengthening the transatlantic bond – the security of North America and Europe are interconnected.

• Canada’s Maritime Security Partnership is a framework for practical cooperation with Allies on shared maritime security priorities, including information-sharing, coordination, and operations in areas such as the North Atlantic and the Arctic.

• Through Operation REASSURANCE, Canada maintains its largest sustained military presence in Europe in more than 30 years, demonstrating its commitment to NATO’s deterrence and defence posture.

With CPSP now in the negotiations phase, more info is slowly coming out regarding some of the details of Canada’s future submarine fleet. Today, TKMS CEO Oliver Burkhard has given up probably our most concrete look at TKMS's proposed Canadian delivery schedule to date while speaking on the Table Today podcast.

For TKMS, the delivery schedule has always been the hardest thing about their bid, with a significant order backlog, some rough early timelines pushing deliveries primarily past 2036, and a Hanwha who is slowly entering a period of slow submarine construction in between the end of the KSS-III Batch II and future KSS-IV and nuclear subs.

It was among the weaker areas that the company could previously compete, saved in the final days by the Norwegian and German promise to both give up a hull each from their own order books to get Canada four subs by 2036. This was further revised down to 2034 with current capacity.

As of Monday, when the decision was announced and the 2034 date first mentioned, we've been left with little info to go off what the full timeline would look like.

Admittedly, we didn't get much of that here either, but we did get a few new proposed details. Speaking with host Michael Bröcker, Burkhard confirmed that the final Canadian Patrol Submarine is now expected to deliver in 2042, originally early forties in his words, before correcting himself to the specific year.

Working backwards from the four boats promised in 2034, that gives us a fairly good picture of the later half of the program. After the first four, TKMS will deliver eight subs over eight years, or roughly one Canadian Patrol Submarine per year once the initial batch is delivered.

Notably, it now lands TKMS at the same 2042 finish line Hanwha had been offering for the longest time, a timeline that TKMS had previously been hesitant to match publicly up until the last two months, though I understand the 2036 date before was on the table for several months.

As always, some things just aren't mentioned publicly, though for such a common question, perhaps the most common that they had been asked by most of the media, rapidly shifting the timelines in the final months of the project feels like something notable to mention if it has been on the table a long while.

That is how some companies work, mind you. I, of course, do not know the whole story, other than that the timeline was impressive and both the Navy and Government were confident in it. Being able to confirm that, though, is a significant shift in previous analysis we have done for the program, as we have commonly stood that Hanwha could and would deliver quicker.

To go further into that, Mr. Burkhard was also keen to head off the capacity question. He states that with the investments already made at Kiel and Wismar, TKMS can fulfill its entire current order book, Canada included, within promised timelines.

As a proof point, he noted that boat four of the German-Norwegian order begins production within days. It's a notably firmer statement than the hedged language we were getting even a few months ago, but does match with what we have been able to determine about TKMS's ongoing capacity.

Kiel itself has recently undergone a massive €250 million expansion, the centerpiece of which is their new state-of-the-art submarine production hall, a massive eight-bay complex designed to construct the next generation of submarines like the 212CD. According to the company, these new facilities could help shave more than 20% off the pure construction timeline for each boat.

Along with this new main hall, the company has also invested in a second dedicated outfitting line, a comprehensively modernized service hall designed strictly to handle Mid-Life Upgrades (MLUs), and a new, high-capacity shiplift and transfer system capable of handling the increased tonnage of the next-generation submarines. Concurrently, the company is investing over €200 million to bring the Wismar facility up to standard, allowing it to begin construction of both surface vessels and submarines. With this addition, plus recent upgrades at TKMS's yard in Kiel, the company is aiming for full operations to commence by 2029.

When both yards are fully operational, TKMS should have the capacity to deliver around four subs per year. I'm looking high with 10 submarines under various forms of construction between both yards. Kiel can do, as I remember, about 6-8 at any given time. Wismar is aiming for four.

Kiel, as I know, can deliver about two to three per year, with the caveat that it includes subs outside the 212CD family. When fully operational, Wismar will have a capacity likely around one, maybe two per year. That gives us that around four to maybe five per year that could be delivered.

The big capacity crunch is up to the 2035 period, when the Israeli and Singapore orders close out. The first Dakar is 2031 and Invincible #5 drops in 2034. Realistically, both are done by 2035/2036, right at the time we move to a boat-a-year timeframe.

So, the first four delivered before 2035 is actually the big critical period. That is where the highest risk factor is. We have two slots that are being reportedly given to us, one each from Norway and Germany. We still don't know which slots those will be.

That will be a big tell to show how things develop. German #1 is supposed to come around 2031, and Norwegian #2 around 2030. Those are the ones a lot of people I find assume; I have zero proof. Hull #4 starts construction any day now; that will be available as well in the timeframe. Hull #5 cuts it to 2033 for delivery.

I assume "by 2034" here is by the end of 2034, not the beginning. That provides a surprising amount of flexibility. We have the presser giving the first as early as 2033. Whether beginning or end here matters. That means to me that any of the first five Kiel hulls are at play, with the sixth hull cutting really close depending on the interpretation of that 2034 date to the first four.

The current delivery timeline is ~6 years, which I imagine will likely compress in later hulls as the yard gets more experience working on the 212CD and efficiency is found, as usually is the case in these things. So, 5-6 years is the construction time we're gonna use as a base.

BUT WAIT. There is a factor here, and that is Wismar. Under the current plan, components manufacturing at Wismar is set to begin later this year, but the actual hull laying for a 212CD at this time is a bit open-ended. The plan is before 2029. I have seen timeline slides for 2027, but have not got confirmation before.

Utilizing Kiel, though, we can roughly suspect that any of the five hulls could be first at a 2033 date. I would even say hull #5 as the first is unlikely, and I don't see the first Norwegian. That does leave German #1, Norwegian #2, or Norwegian #3 as the likely candidates, at least for the first hull.

For Wismar, I have heard, but can't confirm, that two subs in the 2034 period is possible, so that is a factor in itself. In total, that leaves about 6-8 Type 212CDs delivered by the end of 2034.

The other number here, and perhaps more important, is starts. When do subs start construction? We do now have full timelines for the 212CD, but it is around one hull a year right now. I expect that timeline will be cut in the coming years. So, on top of the first two committed, we would also be looking at needing two additional hulls. Two of those go to Norway and Germany, respectively, as theirs.

That isn't accounting for the fact that Norway has hard timelines as well for its fleet, which is already seeing sacrifice with the first slot. If we wanted to work off this schedule, there would need to be additional slots given, which is very unlikely.

The second option is that Wismar steps up, and that two number is accurate. That adds another boat each to the production calendar, which significantly relieves pressure. Wismar in 2029 COULD add a boat to 2034 if it gets to five years, but I ain't ready to say that. Likely it falls to the 2035+ period when they deliver. I also imagine that capacity there goes to Norway and Germany to backfill their sacrificed slots.

Wismar at capacity can deliver post 2035, which is where things start to smooth, and maybe thats alright for Germany or Norway, I don't know. I cant say how they feel here.

Lastly is speeding up that start timeline with additional capacity. That is a strong possibility, it has been discussed, and part of wanting to add Canadian construction capacity is because demand is driving the need to both speed up construction and get starts going quicker; but because I don't know the status or construction timelines for the Dakar and Invincible-class, I can't say what capacity in Kiel is available right now.

Alternatively... Burkhard floated something we've been talking about here for a while now. TKMS does have an MOU now with Navantia to explore jointly producing submarines. He does add that such an arrangement would be up to "if the customer wants it."

He wasn't shy about that ambition either, saying the goal must be to produce even faster than what's been promised. If Navantia ever becomes overflow capacity for TKMS, that could add more dedicated capacity for additional Type 212CDs.

However, that is early stages, and its effects on the timeline now are only hypothetical. I don't see a 212CD being built in Spain. The capacity, workforce, and skillset to work on a submarine like the 212CD just isn't there in its current form. Other submarines, though? It becomes more open.

All of this, of course, is with the caveat that I am working off open source information, much of which is scattered and can be difficult to come by. The answer, though, could TKMS deliver four submarines to us by 2034 and keep supporting Norway and Germany? That is yes, but not working off the current schedule.

Adding Wismar adds the capacity needed to fill the gaps, as does speeding up the timeline on starts to get more than one a year. Both of which are possible. There is capacity there even with the Israeli and Singapore orders.

However, I can't say how that would look, or what could be done, because right now we don't know enough about those two to really judge, other than mid-2030s delivery. Is 2042 for the final submarine possible? Absolutely. No doubt with planned capacity. There is a big freeing up of capacity coming in 2035 and such that helps relieve pressure.

The big problem, as it stands, is that initial four. We also don't know how far Norway and Germany are willing to hold out. That will come with negotiations. Wismar adds at leasta few likely for delivery in 2035/2026. If they can get two more out of it before 2034, either through starting construction or utilizing the yard to help speed up construction and starts? Then we are fairly golden on most fronts. We can squeeze things in very tight, but without requiring too much from Kiel.

The thing is it all has to come together. It all needs to match. We need more than one a year, really, to fit that. That is possible if capacity can be found and Wismar can haul ass. I can't speak on Kiel capacity. I can't say if there are slots there to exploit. We also don't know yet what an updated delivery schedule might look like, and how far Norway or Germany might stretch timelines.

I did try my best with the timelines lol. We know fairly well that we're getting one a year from Kiel starting in 2029, but the point here is that the delivery timelines, from what I can see and I can tell, are possible. It is feasible. We just gotta get those first four situated. Getting them situated fixes a lot of this.

In the meantime, we wait, see negotiations. I will try to ask the TKMS team again. Maybe they can lecture me on their capacity a bit lol. They can be very talkative if you get them going. There are pathways here. They are viable, but what one will be taken? I can't say. We will gopwfully get a detaoled timeline, or perhaps a better understanding of how things will work in the coming months.

July 8, 2026 – Ankara, Türkiye – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces

We, the Minister of National Defence of Canada, the Minister of Defence of Denmark, and the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Latvia, recognize our common interest in maintaining credible deterrence along NATO’s Eastern Flank and our shared resolve to defend every inch of Allied territory.

In response to Russia’s brutal and illegal war against Ukraine, NATO Allies agreed at the 2022 Madrid Summit to scale up NATO’s forces along its Eastern Flank, leading to a more robust, ready and a warfighting capable posture. The role of NATO’s Multinational Division North in maintaining and strengthening this posture has become increasingly important as Russia continues to pose a threat to NATO Allies.

We jointly announce that Canada is joining Denmark and Latvia as the third Framework Nation for Multinational Division North. The addition of Canada will bolster the Division’s ability to provide essential command-and-control and support to NATO forces in Latvia. This will naturally complement Canada's continuing role as Framework Nation for and contributions to Multinational Brigade Latvia, which reports to Multinational Division North in the NATO chain of command. Canada, Denmark, Latvia, and the Allies contributing to Multinational Division North remain steadfast in standing up to aggression that threatens our individual and collective security.

Top Aces Inc. (“Top Aces”), the global leader in advanced operational air combat training, today announced the completion of its acquisition of Select Global International (“SGI”), a Canadian defence company specializing in simulator-based fighter pilot instruction for the Royal Canadian Air Force (“RCAF”).

The transaction, which was first announced on June 11, 2026, brings together SGI’s high-fidelity synthetic training expertise with Top Aces’ more than 20 years of advanced live-fly operational training. The combined expertise ideally positions Top Aces to support the RCAF’s transition to a fifth-generation fighter capability, advancing the objectives of Canada’s Operational Training Infrastructure Enterprise Modernization (OTIEM).

About Top Aces

Founded in 2000 by former RCAF CF-18 pilots, Top Aces delivers advanced, live-fly combat training to the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as NATO and allied forces worldwide. With an industry leading safety record of more than 150,000 accident free flight hours, Top Aces operates the world’s largest fleet of commercially owned tactical fighter aircraft, including the only privately operated F-16s. Built on an uncompromising commitment to safety, credibility, and operational realism, Top Aces provides mission critical training informed by real world experience – preparing allied forces to operate against advanced, near peer threats in an increasingly complex and contested environment. Experience Matters.

Learn more at www.topaces.com.

About Select Global International

Select Global International is a Canadian defence company specializing in simulator-based fighter pilot instruction and synthetic training solutions in support of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Founded in 2013, SGI is staffed by veteran CF-18 instructor pilots with extensive operational and leadership experience.

ST. CATHARINES — Today, Premier Doug Ford was in St. Catharines to announce that the Ontario government is investing over $90 million through the Ontario Shipbuilding Grant Program (OSGP) to increase capacity in the province’s shipbuilding industry as part of its plan to protect Ontario. The investment will help meet the growing demand for Ontario-made vessels, help Ontario shipbuilders support Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and boost the economic competitiveness of Ontario’s shipbuilding and its supply chain while creating thousands of good-paying jobs across the marine sector. The investment is part of Ontario’s ongoing work to support national security and defence, as outlined in the framework for the Ontario Defence Industrial Strategy.

“As Canada and our allies work together, making record investments in defence and global security, Ontario is ready to build the ships that will protect our country and keep our economy moving,” said Premier Ford. “Today’s investment will increase the resilience of Ontario’s marine industry, support thousands of good-paying jobs across Ontario and give businesses more ways to get their products to market.”

Through the OSGP, the province is investing $11 million into Ontario Shipyards, with operations across the Great Lakes; over $8 million into Allied Marine and Industrial in Port Colborne; more than $6 million into MetalCraft Marine Inc. in Kingston and $1.1 million into Connor Industries in Parry Sound. The funding will be used for skills training, infrastructure improvements and new machinery and equipment, helping to position Ontario as a global leader in the “blue economy” and marine trade. The province will also expand the OSGP to provide up to $64 million in future funding

“The marine sector is a vital driver of Ontario’s economy, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to the province’s GDP each year,” said Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation. “Our government is making historic investments in Ontario’s shipbuilding industry to ensure the sector’s long-term prosperity and generate good-paying jobs that drive economic growth for years to come.”

The OSGP will help Ontario-based shipbuilders increase Canada’s capacity under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, a long-term project to renew the country’s fleet of combat and non-combat vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada. As part of the broader federal Defence Industrial Strategy, Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy focuses on three pillars: construction of large vessels, construction of small vessels, and vessel repair, refit and maintenance. Supporting this work will complement Ontario’s Defence Industrial Strategy by ensuring the province’s shipbuilders capitalize on increased federal defence spending, which could reach $150 billion annually by 2035 and generate lasting economic benefits for Ontario workers.

“As Canada and our allies make record investments in defence and security, Ontario stands ready to seize this generational opportunity for workers and businesses,” said Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. “Through continued investment in the Ontario Shipbuilding Grant Program, we are delivering on the mandate set forth in the Ontario Defence Industrial Strategy framework, while equipping shipbuilders across the province to design, develop and deploy the marine technologies our supply chains need.”

Ontario launched the OSGP in 2025 to ensure the province’s shipbuilding sector has the skills, resources, infrastructure and workers to contribute to Canada’s maritime security and shipbuilding future. The expanded OSGP supports Ontario’s participation in Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy by leveraging Ontario’s shipbuilding capacity to meet future demand.

Quick Facts

• Last year, Ontario announced $215 million in funding to support the province’s shipbuilding industry and broader marine sector.

• The second application intake for the OSGP is expected to launch in late summer 2026.

• The GDP of the Great Lakes region is approximately $7.5 trillion. If it were a country, this would make it the third-largest economy in the world.

• Ontario is home to four of five Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, which includes 10,500 kilometres of shoreline. We share these waterways with our most important trading partner, the United States.

Quotes

Noah Note: This money has been on the table too long. I am happy for everyone who has received some, and who are looking at a bit of relief in the current climate, but this funding has sat forever. It has been in play to much. It should have been out there a long time ago.

I am supportive of targetted investment in critical, strategic industries like Shipbuilding, but that funding needs to be stable, flexible and not justnreactive in nature. It feels they wanted that, but it also stretched out the timelines.

I am happy to see Ontario here. Ontario Shipyards got hit hard with the Hanwha loss. They had a lot of gope for their partnership and investment. That is gone now with CPSP, which is sadly just nature of competition's like this. Someone loses, and that means that the partmers lose. It would happen no matter which side won.

That doesn't mean I can't frown a bit at it. No idea if this also stops their FASST-V partnership, hopefully not.

July 8, 2026 (Kongsberg, Norway / Ottawa, Canada) - KONGSBERG, Kongsberg Maritime, and BCIT are pleased to announce a significant investment that will establish the Marine Innovation Simulation Centre of Excellence (MISE) in British Columbia. The initiative is designed to strengthen maritime innovation and skills development, support ongoing research and development, while building on key objectives outlined in Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.

The partnership and subsequent investment are enabled through the Industrial Technological Benefits (ITB) policy, and in support of KONGSBERG programs in Canada. This investment will directly support improved facility infrastructure, onboarding of applied research and faculty expertise, and ongoing research and long-term capability development.

Through the partnership, BCIT’s new Simulation Center will be built around the Kongsberg Maritime simulation technology, providing a synthetic environment, development tools, and APIs to support collaborative applied research with Canadian industry, academia, defence, and public-sector stakeholders. It will serve as a platform for prototyping, human factor studies, testing, and accident and incident analysis including de-risking new concepts in areas such as maritime safety, autonomy, cyber resilience, critical infrastructure, port development, and low- and zero-emission operations. The hub will also help accelerate commercialization opportunities and support the development of sovereign Canadian capability in a strategically important sector.

“We are very pleased to demonstrate our continued commitment to Canada through this partnership,” said Jordan Freed, President and Managing Director at Kongsberg Geospatial, KONGSBERG’s Ottawa-based subsidiary. “Sovereign digital systems are a key capability outlined in Canada’s defence industrial strategy. Our company is pleased to play a role in building out key defence capabilities, based on KONGSBERG and Norway’s long history of maritime domain research and infrastructure.”

The partners will implement a strategic long-term capability to support sustainable and future-oriented maritime development. The technology partners will deliver the core systems, simulation environment, and technical expertise required to enable high realism, scalability, and innovation across the project’s solutions.

“Together with BCIT, we are establishing a long-term innovation and research hub for Canada’s maritime sector—one that can support safer operations, faster competence development and the testing of new concepts before they are deployed in the real world," said Are Føllesdal Tjønn, Managing Director, Maritime Simulation at Kongsberg Maritime. "By combining advanced simulation with collaborative R&D, MISE will empower Canadian maritime capability and support future sustainable growth."

To expand access and increase training capacity, the partnership will provide licenses for cloud-based simulation systems, enabling BCIT to extend learning beyond the campus—supporting flexible delivery, additional practice hours, and remote and distributed training models for its students, while also helping increase access to maritime education and skills development opportunities for Indigenous communities.

“The Marine Innovation Simulation Centre of Excellence speaks to the power of collaboration and partnership. This innovative project will enable the creation of new education and training programs, support small and medium-sized businesses to commercialize new products, and create the most advanced marine education research environment in Canada,” said Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, President of BCIT. “This unique partnership combines workforce development, applied research, and industry collaboration in one environment.”

“MISE reflects BCIT’s commitment to preparing the next generation of talent for Canada’s evolving marine sector,” said Jennifer Figner, Provost and Vice President, Academic, BCIT. “By expanding access to advanced maritime training and immersive learning opportunities, MISE will equip learners with the skills, experience, and industry connections needed to succeed in a rapidly changing sector. It will strengthen BCIT’s ability to deliver responsive, future-focused education that meets the needs of employers and communities across Canada.”

The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, said: “Kongsberg's investment in the Marine Innovation Simulation Centre of Excellence in British Columbia, made through Canada's Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, is a significant step forward for Canada's maritime sector. As the first national hub for maritime simulation and applied research, the centre will help address the shortage of certified mariners and drive innovation. It will also support Canadian small and medium-sized businesses in developing new products and bringing them to market, while strengthening Canada’s defence industrial base. It directly addresses a skills shortage that both commercial and DND operators have identified, in advance of the new fleets being delivered."

BCIT’s strong academic capability, applied research expertise, and educational leadership is central to the implementation and development of the project. Together, the partners expect the initiative to generate significant socio-economic value through workforce development, stronger industry–academia collaboration, innovation opportunities for Canadian small and medium-sized businesses, and broader knowledge transfer across the maritime sector. The project is also expected to support regional economic activity, strengthen sovereign industrial capability, and create long-term benefits for training, research, and commercialization in Canada.

Note: Kongsberg Gruppen ASA and Kongsberg Maritime AS are now two separately listed companies following the demerger of Kongsberg Gruppen. Kongsberg Maritime was listed as an independent global maritime technology company on Euronext Oslo Børs on 23 April 2026.

Noah Note: NOT specifically CPSP-related, but good timing and Kongsberg has put simulators and simulation technology as a major area of collaboration that they wish to explore in Canada as a consequence of CPSP. I expect we will see more in the coming weeks, as CPSP details are more ironed out amd more MOU are signed. The process does not stop at announcements!

I also expect we'll see a lot on Autonomous and Unmanned. Recreating something like the Oslofjord Critical Maritime Infrastructure Protection Test Bed in Canada has been in the CPSP pitch for a while, one of the few things we actually know of interest from Kongsberg.

Oslofjord is a live maritime zone that allows partners and authorities a space where they can run scenarios, simulate responses, and train against real-time data from radars, satellites, and underwater sensors.

It fuses subsea autonomy, surface and space-based surveillance, traffic monitoring, and analytics into a single decision-support architecture, with Kongsbergs HUGIN AUVs carrying much of the load underwater.

It is a post-Nord Stream effort to build the critical testing and simulation infrastructure needed to test Autonomous systems and operating in the Undersea enviornment. It is a NATO-unique facility that has garnered a lot of interest from people around industry, and I'm sure the CAF and Federal Government who would love a domestic facility for this kind of trialing.

While I can't say what the plan fully looks like, and what Kongsberg might be thinking. It could be different in ways, who knows, I do think it is something to keep an eye out for. It is one of their bigger, confirmed promises that I imagine will be at the top of the list to highlight.

Nova Scotia’s universities have taken a significant step toward improving access to higher education for military members, veterans, reservists and their families through a landmark agreement signed Wednesday, June 24 in Halifax at the University of King’s College.

In late June, the Council of Nova Scotia University Presidents (CONSUP) and the Canadian Military, Veteran and Family Connected Campus Consortium (CMVF3C) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) establishing a province-wide framework to better support military-connected learners across Nova Scotia’s 10 public universities. The agreement is the first of its kind in Canada and reflects a shared commitment to expanding post-secondary opportunities for Canada’s military community.

Dalhousie President and Vice-Chancellor Dr. Kim Brooks joined fellow university presidents from across the province at the event and signed the agreement on behalf of Dalhousie.

Removing barriers for military-connected learners

Nova Scotia is home to more than 13,000 military personnel and 1,600 reservists, with those numbers expected to grow in the coming years as the province’s role as a national centre for defence, security and innovation continues to expand. Military service often involves frequent relocations, career transitions and periods of deployment that can make pursuing higher education challenging. The MOU establishes a coordinated approach across Nova Scotia’s universities to help remove barriers and create more seamless pathways for military-connected learners.

Rear Admiral Josée Kurtz, commander Maritime Forces Atlantic and Joint Task Force Atlantic, welcomed the agreement. “This memorandum, this consortium, is part of the potential that is yet to be explored, and I can’t wait to see where it goes,” he said. “To all of you leaders in your respective environments, a big ‘thank you’ on behalf of all our people in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

Under the agreement, CONSUP members will:

• Recognize skills, training and qualifications acquired through military service to support academic pathways;

• Assist military members and families who transfer between institutions because of postings or relocation; and

• Strengthen campus-based supports and services that contribute to student success and well-being.

Dr. Andy Hakin, chair of CONSUP and president of St. Francis Xavier University, said the agreement builds on a long tradition of welcoming military learners while creating new opportunities for collaboration among institutions.

“We are delighted to enter into an MOU with CMVF3C,” said Dr. Hakin. “Nova Scotia universities have a long history of welcoming military personnel and their families. This MOU brings our 10 universities together to move quickly to support the expansion of military learners, and to share best practices, to learn from one another, and to offer a welcoming and high-quality university experience regardless of the chosen university.”

Building on a national movement

The agreement builds upon the growing Military and Veteran Friendly Campus movement across Canada. The CMVF3C network emerged from efforts led by the University of Alberta to create more welcoming and effective pathways for military-connected students. The consortium now works with post-secondary institutions, the Canadian Armed Forces, Veterans Affairs Canada and a range of community partners to improve coordination and support student success.

Dr. Suzette Brémault-Phillips, chair of the CMVF3C and a professor in the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, described the agreement as an important example of provincial leadership.

“Nova Scotia is leading the way with a first-of-its-kind provincial commitment to military-connected learners. We hope today’s agreement inspires other provinces and territories to build similar partnerships and create a network of support for military members, veterans and their families across Canada.”

There is already interest from other Atlantic universities in pursuing similar agreements in their respective provinces.

What’s next

Over the coming months, Nova Scotia’s universities will hope to build on the MOU by exploring further opportunities for collaboration to support veterans. By working together, Nova Scotia’s universities hope to make it easier for military members, veterans and their families to pursue their educational goals, while contributing to the province’s broader strengths in defence, security, research and innovation.

The agreement also builds on existing Dalhousie supports for military-connected students, including a long-standing partnership between the Faculty of Open Learning and Career Development and the Naval Fleet School Atlantic at Stadacona Base in Halifax. This program provides specialized, in-person instruction to meet the training needs of Canadian Navy recruits and active personnel, with courses spanning areas such as engineering, electrical theory, control systems, technical communication, project management and learning strategies.

The Faculty also offers flexible professional development, pathway programming, recognition of prior learning and microcredentials that can help learners build on previous training and experience as they pursue further education or career advancement.

“This type of partnership reflects our civic mission in action,” says Jennifer Hann, Dean (Acting) of the Faculty of Open Learning and Career Development. “It’s highly specialized, mission-driven education that’s responsive to public and national interests. It’s one way we are helping extend Dalhousie’s reach beyond Nova Scotia and into national and international contexts.”

Noah Note: What a wonderful partnership. I comemnd everyone who has worked to get this across. I always love seeing initiatives like this taking place, especially when it.comws to education. We have such a wonderful educational ecosystem ripe for exploit when it comes to supporting our National Defence, and opening doors to further mobility and collaborative expansion is always welcome.

OTTAWA, CANADA – July 8, 2026 – Telesat LEO ULC, a subsidiary of Telesat Corporation (Nasdaq and TSX: TSAT), one of the world’s largest and most innovative satellite operators, today announced that it has reached an agreement in principle with Canada’s Defence Investment Agency for Telesat Lightspeed services to deliver secure Military Ka-band (Mil-Ka) Arctic connectivity to the Canadian Armed Forces for the Enhanced Satellite Communications Project – Polar (ESCP-P) program.

This agreement builds on the Strategic Partnership Agreement announced in late 2025 between the Defence Investment Agency, Telesat, and MDA Space for the ESCP-P program and reflects Canada’s strategy to leverage commercial expertise and innovations to accelerate delivery of critical sovereign capabilities. Telesat expects to deliver a comprehensive solution to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), including secure, Mil-Ka connectivity across Canada’s Arctic region, spanning 65 degrees to 90 degrees North latitude. The program will also include end-to-end network integration services, including user terminals, ground and control infrastructure, training, and support services.

“We commend the Canadian Armed Forces, the Defence Investment Agency, and the Government of Canada for their forward-looking approach to securing critical military communications capabilities,” said Dan Goldberg, Telesat’s President and CEO. “By leveraging commercial innovation and investments, Canada will accelerate access to secure, advanced, resilient and sovereign connectivity while driving meaningful cost efficiencies in program delivery. Telesat Lightspeed will help strengthen the CAF’s ability to maintain persistent communications, operational awareness and mission success across the strategically vital Arctic domain.”

The above agreement is subject to the execution of a definitive contract by the parties, which Telesat expects to be completed in the coming weeks. Following execution, Telesat intends to share more detailed information about the expected financial impact of this agreement. This agreement, as well as the anticipated definitive contract, will not impact the timing of Telesat Lightspeed global service delivery, which remains on track for Q1 2028.

Noah Note: A huge congrats to Telesat here. I kinda expected this to be the pathway, if only to lock in to the Lightspeed network fully ahead of the SATCOM Sisters coming online in the early 2030s (hopefully). Once they seperated out the Military Ka-Band I kinda had it in my head, especially with the timelines at present.

Anywho, great job either way!

"Canada and the United Kingdom recognise the shared challenge facing like-minded partners in scaling defence industrial capacity, strengthening resilience, and supporting deterrence and defence.

We welcome the growing interest among allies and partners in developing multilateral approaches to defence financing and procurement, including our ongoing initiatives.

These initiatives have the potential to support investment in defence industrial capacity, improve coordination across allies, and enhance the availability and interoperability of capabilities. They can operate in parallel to support collective defence and security.

The efforts of the countries supporting the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and the Multilateral Defence Mechanism have a high degree of complementarity, and, taken together can serve to improve defence investment throughout the supply chain.

Canada and the UK will continue to engage closely to ensure our respective initiatives develop in a coherent and mutually supportive way. Where it is possible within their agreed mandates, we will seek opportunities to cooperate closely and ensure complementarity. We encourage like-minded partners to engage in these discussions."

Noah Note: This has been in the minor rumor mill the last few days. We talked a bit about MDM last week as a competitor to the DSRB. I should note that competition doesn't come from them being similar. In fact, both are more complementary to each other at furst glance. The DSRB is a bank, a financial instrument to utilize.

By comparison the MDM is a procurement vehicle. It is there to facilitate the rapid and joint procurement of common equipment. The includes through Direct grant funding and pooled buying, but explicitly removes itself from long-term financing as the DSRB would, same to supporting Industry.

Deapite those differences though, the two are competitors. Capital is always going to be a limiting factor, and the DSRB asks for a fairly hefty commitment out the gate. There is also a bit of an open debate to be had on eaither side about the value of the other. Certainly, certain UK officials have used MDM as an idealized model that they believe fits better than DSRB.

Funniest timeline is basically recreating SAFE through aligning both instruments. Sone people are talking about a merger, but I dont see that. These are two seperate, distinct things. They have different frameworks, goals, and setups. Perhaps there could be some sort of reciprocal membership down the line? Where members have an option to easily participate in both?

Either way its good to get soke alignment, especially if it means getting the UK involved. Belgium involvement in the DSRB, I hope, at least helps nudge the Netherlands into the conversation again after they gave a pretty cold response before. Getting all three into the DSRB would be a fsirly big boost to the walking start we have now.

Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, met with the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, on the margins of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Türkiye.

Prime Minister Carney congratulated Prime Minister Frederiksen on the formation of the new government in Denmark. The prime ministers reaffirmed the strong partnership between Canada and Denmark and discussed opportunities to increase cooperation on trade, defence, Arctic security, energy, and critical minerals. With bilateral trade having doubled over the past 10 years, the leaders agreed there is significant potential to expand partnerships between Canadian and Danish industries and businesses.

To deepen transatlantic cooperation and further contribute to NATO’s collective defence, the Prime Minister confirmed that Canada will join Latvia and Denmark as the third Framework Nation for NATO’s Multinational Division North (MND-N). As a high-readiness command, MND-N is entrusted with critical responsibilities to protect the northern Baltic Sea region. This includes planning and coordinating military operations, information sharing, and exercises. As a Framework Nation, the Canadian Armed Forces will take a leadership role in these efforts to defend NATO’s Eastern Flank.

Prime Minister Carney underscored Canada’s efforts to establish the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank to provide multi-year, low-cost financing for defence, security, and resilience initiatives.

The leaders reaffirmed their enduring support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s ongoing war of aggression. They agreed to maintain pressure on Russia to negotiate in order to achieve a just and lasting peace.

Prime Minister Carney and Prime Minister Frederiksen agreed to remain in close contact.

Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, met with the President of Latvia, Edgars Rinkēvičs, on the margins of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Türkiye.

Prime Minister Carney reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to transatlantic security and NATO’s collective defence. The Prime Minister thanked President Rinkēvičs for Latvia’s continued hosting of Canadian Armed Forces personnel deployed under Operation REASSURANCE – Canada’s largest overseas mission.

To deepen these ties and reinforce transatlantic security, the Prime Minister announced Canada’s extension of Operation REASSURANCE until 2031, with an increase of persistently deployed personnel up to 2,600. Operation REASSURANCE is a critical NATO mission that helps deter Russian aggression on NATO’s Eastern Flank and fortifies our shared defence.

The Prime Minister also confirmed that Canada will join Latvia and Denmark as the third Framework Nation for NATO’s Multinational Division North and looked forward to deepening cooperation with both partners to reinforce defence and security along NATO’s Eastern Flank.

The Prime Minister and the President discussed strengthening the bilateral partnership, including through increased trade, investment, and defence industrial cooperation. Prime Minister Carney emphasised Canada’s membership in the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, unlocking defence procurement opportunities. The leaders discussed the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and its potential to strengthen Allied defence industrial production. Prime Minister Carney welcomed Latvia’s support for the initiative and discussed opportunities to encourage broader participation.

The Prime Minister and the President reaffirmed their steadfast support for Ukraine and underscored the importance of maintaining pressure on Russia, including through sanctions, while advancing efforts toward a just and lasting peace. They also exchanged views on regional security challenges, including hybrid threats.

Prime Minister Carney and President Rinkēvičs agreed to remain in close contact.

Noah Note: As I said before, dedication goes a long way, and sexuring our position out past 2030 is a major show of support to our allies and goes a long way to show seriousness in commiting to our stance as as Eastern Front partner.

Same goes for joining up as a Framework Nation for NATO's Multinational Division North (MND-N), a major commitment that turns Canada from a local leader in Latvia into an Operation leader that stretches across the Baltic states. In the inmediate little changes, but taking on that leadership role does open up for further, deeper Canadian commitments to the alliance and Baltic Front at a time where Canada’s Army is about to undertake its most significant shift in doctrine woth the Army Warfighting Concept dropping this Fall.

Also important to note that Latvia is the one Baltic to jump quick on the DSRB. Im interested to see what that might lead to.

In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada must be prepared to defend ourselves and our Allies. As the threats to North America evolve, Canada is focused on taking full responsibility for the security of our Arctic. Over the past year, Canada has undertaken a generational transformation of our defence posture through historic investments, major reforms, and stronger partnerships with our Allies. As a result, Canada is a stronger, more capable member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with greater ability to lead and advance the Alliance’s mission of collective security.

Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, concluded his participation at the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Türkiye. At the Summit, Canada and our Allies signed a joint declaration reaffirming their commitment to NATO and to transatlantic security. Canada is on a clear path to meet NATO’s target of investing 5% of GDP in defence by 2035. We are moving fast, making ambitious and strategic defence investments, including in a new submarine fleet, the world’s second-largest fleet of icebreakers, and new aircraft, missiles, and cyber defences.

To strengthen collective defence and security, Prime Minister Carney announced a series of new investments and initiatives to build up domestic and Allied defence industrial capacity, reinforce deterrence along NATO’s Eastern Flank, support Ukraine, and mobilise private capital in support of shared security priorities.

In Türkiye, the Prime Minister underlined new defence partnerships and contracts that will catalyse growth in the private sector, including:

• An agreement-in-principle with Telesat for ESCP-P to utilise Telesat Lightspeed to provide sovereign, reliable, and continuous military satellite communications in the Arctic – expected to result in a multi-billion-dollar investment in Canada’s defence sector.

• An approximately $800 million contract with Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace to procure Joint Strike Missiles, a type of long-range missile, which will be integrated into future fighter aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

• An updated procurement strategy for the Light Utility Vehicle project to immediately limit the tender to two Canadian defence industry suppliers to deliver 1,600 to 2,100 vehicles and 400 to 500 light utility trailers for the militarised portion of the Canadian Armed Forces’ fleet.

  To further reinforce the Alliance’s capabilities, grow the transatlantic industrial base, and support cutting-edge innovative defence and dual-use companies, Prime Minister Carney announced that:

• Canada has agreed to open technical negotiations to join the NATO Innovation Sub-Fund. This aims to develop emerging and advanced technologies that are important for NATO’s defence and security, while giving Canadian innovators opportunities to access capital, strategic networks, and transatlantic markets.

• Canada will host the 2027 NATO Industry Forum to strengthen cooperation between Allies and industry to advance defence innovation and industrial capacity across NATO.

To deepen trade and commercial ties with NATO Allies and to create new partnerships for Canadian workers and businesses, the Prime Minister announced:

• The launch of negotiations with Germany toward a Canada-Germany Strategic Partnership Agreement (Partnership Agreement). As Canada’s largest trading partner in the EU, the Canada-Germany partnership supports careers across Canada. The Partnership Agreement will bring together cooperation across key priorities – including security and defence, technology, investment, supply chains and raw materials, energy, and space – under one umbrella, with concrete projects and commitments, to shape and advance cooperation in the years to come.

• The launch of negotiations with Türkiye on a comprehensive Canada-Türkiye free trade agreement. With bilateral trade between Canada and Türkiye reaching $4.3 billion in 2025, the agreement will unlock significant opportunities for businesses, workers, and investors in both countries.

The Prime Minister announced the extension of the Canadian-led Operation REASSURANCE until 2031, including plans to increase Canada’s persistently deployed personnel to up to 2,600. As Canada’s largest overseas mission, Operation REASSURANCE helps deter Russian aggression on NATO’s Eastern Flank and fortifies our shared defence. The Prime Minister also confirmed that Canada will join Latvia and Denmark as the third Framework Nation of Multinational Division North, taking on more responsibility to protect NATO’s Eastern Flank.

Building on successful negotiations with international partners in Montréal this spring, Prime Minister Carney welcomed support from eight countries for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). Canada is helping lead the establishment of this new multilateral financial institution that will mobilise and deploy private capital quickly to bolster collective security. As the future host of its headquarters, this Canada-led Bank will provide long-term, low-cost financing for defence, security, and resilience initiatives across supply chains, helping governments and small and medium-sized enterprises address critical financing gaps. The DSRB will also spur significant job creation across member countries – with new orders for businesses in defence industries and new partnerships in emerging sectors from AI and quantum to space and cyber.

Prime Minister Carney announced that a portion of Canada’s previously announced commitment of approximately $2 billion in military assistance for Ukraine will support urgent and critical requirements, including:

• $475 million for ammunition – including $75 million to deliver extended-range rounds through the Czech Ammunition Initiative – and $400 million to source over 39 million rounds of various calibre ammunition from Canadian industry.

• Nearly $400 million to build 35 Canadian-made armoured combat support vehicles to sustain Ukrainian frontline combat units.

• $50 million to provide critical information technology and engineering equipment to Ukraine.

• Canada has been among Ukraine’s top supporters in the face of Russia’s aggression, committing over $25.5 billion in multifaceted assistance to Ukraine since 2022, including over $8.5 billion in military assistance.

At the 2026 NATO Summit, Prime Minister Carney met with the Secretary General of NATO and leaders from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, North Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. These meetings focused on advancing cooperation on shared defence and security priorities, including strengthening Allied capabilities, supporting Ukraine’s self-defence, and restoring safe and unrestricted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Canada entered this NATO Summit on a clear upward trajectory – rapidly increasing defence spending and building the capabilities and infrastructure needed to defend ourselves and our Allies. Through new investments, deeper defence industrial partnerships, strengthened support for Ukraine, and an expanded role in reinforcing NATO’s Eastern Flank, Canada is delivering on its commitments and helping build a stronger, more secure Alliance. Canada will continue to prioritise investments in the Arctic as part of its ongoing work to strengthen collective defence, defend transatlantic security, and protect the values that unite us.

Quotes

Quick facts

• At the 2026 Summit, NATO Allies were joined by 9 additional partner countries and the European Union.

  Canada’s attendance at the 2026 NATO Summit follows targeted actions the government has taken over the past year to rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in our military, including:

• Increasing defence investments to 2% of GDP in 2025-26.

• Providing pay raises to all Canadian Armed Forces members.

• Launching the Defence Investment Agency to overhaul and streamline Canada’s defence procurement.

• Launching the Defence Industrial Strategy to transform our defence industry by prioritising Canadian suppliers and materials, investing in Canadian innovation and commercialisation, and streamlining procurement.

• Investing more than $40 billion to defend, build, and transform Canada’s Northern and Arctic regions.

• Securing major defence contracts for critical equipment and infrastructure, including $6.4 billion to construct two new polar icebreakers, $2.1 billion over five years to acquire long-range missile capability for the Canadian Armed Forces, and $4.67 billion over five years to reinforce Arctic security through the Over-the-Horizon Radar project.

• Signing a strategic partnership with Telesat and MDA Space to deliver the ESCP-P program in December.

• Announcing that Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has been selected as the preferred supplier to begin negotiations for delivering Canada’s next fleet of submarines to the Royal Canadian Navy.

• The Defence, Security and Resilience Bank will provide long-term, low-cost financing for defence, security, and resilience initiatives, helping to address critical financing gaps, with benefits for defence workers and industries, including small and medium-sized businesses.

• Canada launched Operation REASSURANCE in 2014 following Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. More than a decade later, it remains the Canadian Armed Forces’ largest overseas mission.

• Canada has been among Ukraine’s top supporters in the face of Russia’s aggression, committing over $25.5 billion in multifaceted assistance to Ukraine since 2022, including over $8.5 billion in military assistance.

• In February 2026, Canada extended Operation UNIFIER by an additional three years, to 2029, to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces can provide ongoing military training and capacity-building support to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Noah Note: CALL IT A NIGHT. WOW. Holy there is a freaking lot to go through here. How to close a freaking NATO summit by dropping like everything at one freaking go. I need a moment lol.

To start, a couple things on the big announcements. LUV tracks with what we reported both on Monday and yesterday on X. LUV is being looked to be sped up. Part of that is a realignment on the goals and expectations of what suppliers will be involved.

The government aims to award on LUV by the end of 2027, potentially this year. The announcement does not confirm who is being downselected, but I am.of the belief that it is GM and Roshel. Both of whom were the domestic companies that met the requirements, although in GM case there was some that they may have just got through.

Utilizing Lightspeed to deliver on ESCP-P was also something that we expected. I speculated on it when the Partnership with MDA and Telesat was first announced. Lightspeed was already being constructed with Arctic coverage baked in. Its architectures and infrastructure, especially when Telesat began setting out dedicated military Ka-Band was already well aligned.to quickly fulfill those requirements.

Doing this allows Canada to secure priority access to the Lightspeed network, and deliver on an Arctic-Capable communication constellation years ahead of schedule to when ESCP-P was hoped to be delivered. Also provides a good stopgap as the other SATCOM Sisters are being worked on.

Joint Strike Missile, admittedly, I heard two weeks ago and kept to myself, when Kongsberg shadowdropped a new JSM customer. That has been in the plans a long while though, as we have so often reported over the last year. That and LRASM/JASSM are the primary Long-Range, Precision Strike capabilities that the RCAF in hunting. It has always remained in the books, and I am happy to see at least one of them get done and dusted.

OP Reassurance has been extended, just a few months after the last lol. Dedication goes a long way, and sexuring our position out past 2030 is a major show of support to our allies and goes a long way to show seriousness in commiting to our stance as as Eastern Front partner.

Same goes for joining up as a Framework Nation for NATO's Multinational Division North (MND-N), a major commitment that turns Canada from a local leader in Latvia into an Operation leader that stretches across the Baltic states. In the inmediate little changes, but taking on that leadership role does open up for further, deeper Canadian commitments to the alliance and Baltic Front at a time where Canada’s Army is about to undertake its most significant shift in doctrine woth the Army Warfighting Concept dropping this Fall.

It'll be interesting though, to see what comes of that. On top of that we have Canada joining the NATO Innovation Sub-Fund, which was first scooped oit by Pippa a few days ago, a near billion dollar allocation to Ukraine, and a new Strategic Partnership announcement with Germany.

All of this IS ON TOP of what was announced yesterday, including:

• An alliance Globaleye Order for up to 10 Aircraft, plus some confirmation that Poland, Spain, and Finland are interested in their own AEWC fleets. An absolute massive win in it's own right considering that the Federal Government has been banking on significant export sales as the reasoning behind pushing through and securing Globaleye.

• A new Critical Mineral Stockpiling Initative

• Several new Space initatives, including Isar/MLS deal, Canada joining NATO STARLIFT, and a new pan-alliance framework for sattelite connectivity in HALO

• A new Multinational Initiative to develop a new NATO common 155mm shell that Canada will be participating in

• The first Tranche of DSRB Members Including Albania, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania, Türkiye, Ukraine

• And of course Subs the day before.

All in all it is hard to see how Canada doesn't come out of this a winner. An expanding leadership role in NATO, The first DSRB members, a significsnt export win in Globaleye, and several procurement announcements including one project sped up by two years in LUV and several in ESCP-P.

If the Feds desore hwre was to show off, than show off they most certainly have. This is an absolutely world-class list of announcements to make on the Defence-side. Was everything I expected here? No. There was one other thing I was expecting, but in due time it'll come.

There was lots that I wasn't expecting though, and that is what matters in my books. At the end of the day, the Feds get to walk out of this Summit being able to hold theor head up high with real victories and commitments under their belt. You love to see it.

Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, met with the Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, on the margins of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Türkiye.

Canada and Germany have a robust bilateral relationship across commerce, defence, and energy. Germany is Canada’s largest trading partner in the European Union, with bilateral trade valued at over $34 billion. To create new partnerships between workers and businesses in both countries, the leaders announced the launch of negotiations toward a Canada-Germany Strategic Partnership Agreement (Partnership Agreement). The Partnership Agreement will bring together cooperation across key priorities – including security and defence, technology, investment, supply chains and raw materials, energy, and space – under one umbrella, with concrete projects and commitments, to shape and advance cooperation in the years to come.

Canada and Germany are focused on attracting investment, creating jobs, expanding businesses, and harnessing each other’s strengths to build.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor invited their foreign ministers to advance negotiations, with the intention of finalising the Partnership Agreement before the end of the year.

Prime Minister Carney and Chancellor Merz agreed to remain in close contact.

“Today, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, and the Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, announced the launch of negotiations towards a Canada-Germany Strategic Partnership Agreement (“Partnership Agreement”).

Canada and Germany benefit from a robust bilateral relationship, with established cooperation across a number of shared priorities.

The Partnership Agreement will serve as a flexible strategic framework through which Canada and Germany will shape and advance cooperation, and direct investment in key strategic industries, for years to come.

Amongst others, key areas of cooperation will include:

1. Security and Defence;

2. Technology, Artificial Intelligence and Space;

3. Supply Chains and Critical Minerals;

4. Energy; and

5. Investment.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor invited their Ministers of Foreign Affairs to advance negotiations, with the intention of finalising the Partnership Agreement before the end of the year.”

Noah Note: This strategic partnership is not new, however it is an area that I am watching like a hawk. There is significant chance that this agreement will lay the foundation for most CPSP investment, at least for the short and medium-term.

Taking note of its priorities, areas of interest, etc that pop up will be of grave importance. So rest assured that I will try my best to be a nosey boy amd get to the bottom of things as best I can! I expect that Munitions amd Space will be important avenues listed among here, along with Critical Minerals.

Munitions is one I am very much keeping a tight eye on.

“In times of profound geopolitical change, Canada, Germany and Norway are determined to build a strategic, long-term security partnership built on shared values and interests.

Yesterday’s Canadian decision to join the German-Norwegian Type 212CD submarine cooperation creates a unique opportunity to boost our defence industrial and military cooperation.

We are seizing this opportunity to bring Canada, Germany and Norway closer together for decades to come in a spirit of friendship and trust.

Together, we will assume greater responsibility for transatlantic security and collective defence.

Our commitment extends beyond security and defence, encompassing strategic areas such as investment, energy, artificial intelligence, space and critical minerals.”

Noah Note: One thing I expected was somw konda of trilateral announcement seperate meetings or such. I guess not huh?