A GBAD Update

Here we are again.

This feels like Deja-vu. It was only a few weeks ago that LUV had a major update, and now the other project I've gone extensively into, GBAD, has seemingly suffered the same fate.

On October 10th, it was officially announced that the current GBAD project would be reset amd broken up into three seperate phases. This includes canceling the current ITQ, effectively killing the current iteration of the project.

The official response lays it quite clear:

The operational requirements and needs of the Government of Canada have changed dramatically.

I previously acknowledged this sentiment in my earlier GBAD piece. The project was first started up in 2017, at a very different time when the primary threats of such system were designed for the realities of Afghanistan, with a heavy C-RAM focus, not the peer-on-peer warfare we expect to face now.

An Urgent Operational Requirement has been declared for a SHORAD/C-RAM battery to equip EFP Latvia. This will follow the same targets as the OG GBAD project and constitutes phase one of the project.

This will be an off-the-shelf solution, with consultation and engagement to begin sshortly. We have no timeline for a release of an RFI, nor an award, but I have been told it is hoped to stay on a similar track as the OG GBAD project.

This would give us a 2025 timeline to see this award, and likely, with thr C-RAM focus still in play, Skyhunter remains my expectation for what will likely be procured.

Phase II will procure a wider SHORAD solution for CAF. This will be for a single SHORAD battery as well. The intention is for this SHORAD battery to be tailored to Canada’s specific requirements through a new competition.

‘Canadization’ is used here for this phase, but I am confused as to what it means. It seems they are dropping the C-RAM focus for this Phase, which might open up a more diverse pool of options, such as CAMM or NASAMS, that can fulfill both a SHORAD and MRAD capability.

It's still only a battery though, less than what I would hope from a reset. At the least, I would like to see two, on top of the UOR, but I will get to that in a moment.

Lastly, Phase III will procure a vehicle mounted Very-Short Range Air Defence (VSHORAD) solution.

This is a change from the previous GBAD expectations, which specifically aimed for a dismounted VSHORAD capability. There is no mention of a new, or continuing, dismounted VSHORAD.

What will this vehicle-mountwd caoability be? No clue. Vehicle-based VSHORAD comes in many flavours, from concepts such as the SAAB MSHORAD, to more complex systems like Skyranger, that combined both a gun and missile based solution.

I have been long advocating for a solution like this. Vehicle-mounted VSHORAD is a critical part of a mobile, layered air-defence network that we will require in a peer-on-peer conflict.

These phases will be separate, and unlike the OG GBAD project, it will not require companies to bid on all three phases. This is a very welcome change from the original project.

I won't repeat myself a fourth time, but combined projects often times are detrimental to the bidding process, force incompatible solutions, and don't help speed up the procurement timeline.

It is unreasonable to punish a company over not being able to fill all requirements, or accepting lower or an unwanted platform just because it is required for one company to supply a wide range of solutions.

There are no concrete details given beyond the loose timeline for Phase I. An entirely new competitive process likely pushes Phase II and III to 2030 and beyond, assuming an RFI does not drop till late 2025/early 2026.

Of course, this isn't the most surprising, though I remain a bit worried, especially on the timeline of things.

The GBAD project has been in the works since 2017, and a lot has changed since then. I've often talked about it, and the fact the project was created for a far different expectation than what we expect to face.

The C-RAM solution built off the backs of the GWOT is no longer what we are preparing for, and is no longer what we can expect this system to handle.

Is breaking it up so close to a contract award a bad thing? Time will tell. Maybe GBAD was running behind? Maybe they're taking the risk and breaking up as it should have been because they recognize the solution asked for is no longer desired.

This does raise a few questions. What of Dismounted VSHORAD? Will we be taking the reasonable and responsible route of acquiring more RBS-70NG? An already modern, proven solution in widespread use with out allies?

Similarly, I am concerned about the possibility of running multiple different systems of the same caliber. What is chosen for Phase I might be vastly different to Phase II even if they share a lot of the same duties and roles.

All will be told in due time, but I am a bit nervous and, admittedly, saddened. GBAD was ahead of schedule, a project that showed we can get ahead of the process, and now like LUV amd NVSM is being broken apart.

Recognizing the need to make sudden changes is a good trait. Admitting failure is another. No one will argue this was likely a much needed affair. Yet it's one that could have been avoided in a better system.