Breaking: HDFM & MCAV RFI Released

Project Update

Welp. I said that we would see a string of RFIs thrown out before CANSEC.

This itself isn't really that unusual, mind you. You want stuff out before everyone is gathered in one place to engage with each other. Why wait until after CANSEC to release an RFI? That would be silly. Right? Surely...

Anywho, we have a big one released fairly late in the day. The DND has officially dropped the RFI for both Heavy Direct Fire Modernization and Medium Cavalry, in the same RFI no less! That's right; while both projects are independent of each other, the army has decided that this rare procurement moment presents an opportunity!

We just talked about MCAV yesterday and HDFM earlier this year. I recommend reading both, as they are still relevant to the discussion. Since it is so late in the day, I won't go on my usual rambling. Let's just get right into it.

---

Timelines, Shared Requirements, and Lovely Commonality

First, a reminder: Heavy Direct Fire Modernization aims to acquire a new heavy armour fleet to replace the existing Leopard 2A4/6. At the same time, MCAV seeks a new tracked family to conduct combat reconnaissance and combat support operations.

The most significant point to highlight out the gate, and the one that is likely to mess with potential options the most, is that the DND has taken a very aggressive stance regarding interoperability and commonality between HDFM and MCAV.

The RFI explicitly asks suppliers to detail how their proposed platforms will maximize shared components across both fleets, both to minimize costs and supply chain burdens. The DND is looking for both platforms to share a number of common systems, including powerpacks, fire control systems, optics and sensors, and suspension systems across the two vehicle classes.

Additionally, both fleets are expected to share a common digital backbone, Battle Management System (BMS), crew station UI, and software environment for seamless data sharing and integrated operations.

Baseline technical requirements remain fairly standard to what you would expect. Both platforms need to be at Technology Readiness Level 9, currently in service with NATO allies, and designed to operate entirely on NATO-standard fuels, lubricants, ammunition, etc.

Both platforms are asked to include Active Protection Systems (APS) and C-UAS measures, as well as comprehensive protection against CBRN hazards, including Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) and air filtration overpressure systems.

Both fleets will require 30 days of supply of operational stock and training ammunition, alongside an Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) and In-Service Support (ISS) framework covering the full expected 20-year fleet life.

The timeline for this massive recapitalization is what we expected, and as far as I know, represents a later IOC date. Basically, if it could be sped up? The DND would prefer it, but ain't saying it here.

The RFP is slated for release in 2030, with contract awards anticipated in 2031-2032 and deliveries starting between 2033 and 2035. However, there is an interesting inclusion here; MCAV features a UOR clause built into the RFI, with a potential request for an initial batch of approximately 50 vehicles plus limited support to support Canada’s ongoing presence in Latvia. This would see the first vehicles delivered by 2030.

That is something I have not heard before, and it is one of the things that came as an immediate surprise to me. Of course, like many such UOR proposals, I expect it will get thrown out to focus on the main acquisition and potentially try to speed up the timelines, similar to the Self-Propelled Howitzer UOR.

In terms of scale, the DND is considering acquiring up to two heavy armoured regiments' worth of vehicles for HDFM, and up to two medium cavalry regiments for MCAV. This represents the lower end of the numbers that I am familiar with; again, see our MCAV discussion in yesterday's newsletter.

The RFI further scopes out potential infrastructure investments at bases across the country, spanning from Shilo and Edmonton to Petawawa and Gagetown.

Overall, the demand here is fairly clear. The DND is looking for a strategic partner, or partnership, that can supply both HDFM and MCAV, with the hopes that this partner can leverage extensive commonality between both platforms to mitigate supply chain risks, reduce costs and maintenance burdens, and, admittedly, better leverage potential industrial offsets.

I should note, there is no requirement to bid both. Companies can go after only one requirement and be perfectly accepted; however, the RFI puts a heavy advantage to companies able to support both requirements and provide commonality between proposals.

We will get more into that in a bit. For now, let's dive into the requirements.

Heavy Direct Fire Modernization

HDFM, for all it's worth, keeps things fairly simple as to what it desires. The DND is looking for a heavy platform that provides the firepower, protection, and battlefield mobility needed to defeat opposing forces and rapidly manoeuvre under fire across complex terrain.

The proposed platform must be capable of defeating opposing-force mobile armoured targets out to 3000m while on the move, and feature a secondary armament to neutralize or suppress dismounted infantry at ranges up to 800m.

The platform should take a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to survivability. The platforms must provide robust protection against direct fire from modern armoured threats, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), and advanced anti-tank guided missiles.

This must be supplemented, again, by integrated C-UAS and Active Protection Systems, with the RFI explicitly demanding options for both hard-kill and soft-kill countermeasures. The platforms must also employ advanced signature management to mask their thermal, radar, acoustic, and visual footprints, including incorporating specialized multispectral camouflage systems.

The RFI also demands specific data on ready rack versus stowed ammunition distribution, loading system architecture, and safety cases for ammunition compartmentalization for internal survivability. The RFI also leaves room open for both autoloading and manual loading turrets.

The platform must be capable of integrating a number of modular engineer attachments into the chassis, such as a dozer blade, mine plough, mine roller, obstacle marking system, and mine clearing line charge (MICLIC) launcher.

It also requires sufficient spare power, cooling, and modularity to accommodate increased main-armament lethality, the integration of allied battle-management systems, pairing with local uncrewed systems, and advanced augmented-reality targeting capabilities.

It must be air-transportable by CC-177 aircraft and remain fully interoperable with the military's Close Support Bridging System, strictly not exceeding Military Load Classification 80.

Lastly, the HDFM project scope extends beyond just the main battle tank to include combat support vehicles, specifically encompassing Armoured Engineering Vehicles, Armoured Recovery Vehicles, Command Posts, and resupply vehicles.

In total, the RFI leaves HDFM fairly open, as it should, with suppliers given lots of room to showcase innovation and future plans. This is, of course, needed given the proposed timeline between now and the RFP, where many next-gen systems, such as the KF51 and K3, will be more prepared to participate.

It also opens up a bit of room to explore non-traditional options. While the RFI seems set for an MBT, there is enough wiggle room present that a medium tank, such as a CV90120, could hypothetically squeeze in with the right package and convincing.

It wouldn't be easy, mind you, and that does not seem like the DND route here; however, it is a possibility that remains on the table.

Medium Cavalry Vehicle

MCAV is by far the one I think most are interested in. A tracked family of vehicles feels like something that, just a few years ago, would have felt like fantasy save for the people crying about CCV and the CV90, which I always remind them was not a tracked competition. Some people confuse that.

MCAV is designed, in theory, to fill the medium gap. It will be more lethal and survivable for the crew than the LAVs, while avoiding the massive weight, operational mobility, and sustainment limitations of modern main battle tanks.

The core here is the Direct Fire (DF) variant, which forms the primary variant of the MCAV fleet. The DF must be equipped with vehicle-mounted weapons capable of defeating armoured targets protected to at least K4 level while on the move, at engagement ranges up to 3000 meters. It must also be able to neutralize or suppress dismounted infantry using a secondary armament at all ranges up to 800 meters.

MCAV must be survivable in the modern battlespace, including in contested, digitally-defined, saturated environments. MCAV must provide a minimum K4 kinetic protection for vehicle-mounted personnel, while any components requiring only K3 protection must be explicitly identified by the supplier.

It must integrate C-UAS measures, an Active Protection System, and resist CBRN hazards via Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) and overpressure air filtration. It must also be capable of physically reducing its probability of detection through things like platform-specific multispectral camouflage, not too dissimilar to HDFM.

The Combat Reconnaissance (CR) variant acts as the family's premier sensor platform, designed for persistent, beyond line-of-sight observation. It must seamlessly fuse feeds from integrated systems like mast-mounted sensors, tethered UAS systems, acoustic detectors, and electronic support measures with higher-level assets like satellite uplinks, SOF ground sensors, and the CP8A.

To sustain high-tempo combat operations, the MCAV family aims for maximum parts commonality across its supporting variants. This includes Command Posts for integrated tactical networks, Armoured Engineering Vehicles for obstacle crossing, Armoured Ambulances, and Armoured Maintenance, Repair, and Recovery Vehicles; all of which, I want to mention, we actually brought up yesterday.

Together, the proposed solution must provide battalion-level supply, vehicle recovery, and Level 1 maintenance to enable the fleet to operate independently for a minimum of three days. MCAV must be deployable by air via CC-177, sea, rail, and road, and capable of sustained 24/7 movement in all-weather and all-season environments.

Finally, suppliers must design MCAV with sufficient modularity, payload capacity, and spare power to support uncrewed ground vehicle collaboration, autonomously operated systems, and future AI-enabled digital sensors.

The Demands

It wouldn't be a Canadian procurement if we didn't get into the demands the federals set out to suppliers for investment and work to be done in Canada. HDFM/MCAV is one of the first major projects to release under both the Defence Industrial Strategy, proposed DIA, and soon-to-be ITB changes. That makes it an early insight into how exactly the federal government plans to handle major projects with the increased demand for industrial and economic benefits.

The RFI explicitly lays out a few key sovereign capabilities that they would like to see supported, with the RFI demanding direct work and supplier development in advanced materials, armour, electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) systems, ground vehicle solutions, in-service support, and training and simulation.

Respondents are required to outline comprehensive plans and necessary investments for producing platforms, components, and subsystems domestically. The DND, though, recognizes the potential conflict between establishing a domestic manufacturing base and the urgent operational need for vehicles.

Suppliers must provide a detailed acceleration trade-off analysis, specifically identifying any risks that adhering to the Buy Canadian policy requirements might pose to the rapid delivery of the initial 50 MCAV vehicles by 2030.

The most aggressive stance taken in the RFI revolves around data sovereignty and the right to repair. The RFI presses suppliers on the exact level of Technical Data Packages (TDP) that will be provided, specifically asking if Canada will secure the rights to perform domestic modifications or integrate sovereign sensors and software.

Furthermore, Canada requires unrestricted access to the vehicles' Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) and Built-In Test (BIT) data for predictive analytics, explicitly demanding this access be granted without any gatekeeping.

Suppliers must also confirm whether their in-service support model allows Canada to authorize third-party Canadian firms to perform repairs or modifications without voiding warranties or violating export controls. They must also detail any data rights or security dependencies that might delay compliance with domestic production.

As always, we also get a nod to the Munition Supply Program. Just like IFM, the Canadian government is also looking for solutions to provide comprehensive support for the domestication of key munitions in Canada, including tank shells, missile systems, and other armament and critical systems.

Suppliers should be prepared to establish a partnership with an MSP company through an agreed-upon workshare arrangement. The RFI demands the issuance of required manufacturing licenses and the complete transfer of manufacturing information, technologies, and know-how for both current munition solutions and future improvements.

Some Quick Thoughts

Immediately, the requirements set out are open, easily met by most competitors, and generally focused on giving suppliers room to showcase future technologies and proposals. The RFP being four years out leaves a lot of room for potential shifts in the market and in DND requirements.

As always, RFIs are never final. They are about engagement and information gathering above all. They are inherently designed to be fairly open to solutions, unless one is immediately desired, and then they just don't care. This, though, isn't that. The RFI, while it has some high expectations and desires for commonality (which isn't a bad thing), does give ample space for proposals to experiment with their offerings.

We mentioned medium tanks; that's one. It also leaves room for partnerships, my most immediate thought being Hyundai Rotem and Hanwha with the K2 and Redback. That feels like a natural partnership, not too dissimilar to Team Korea in CPSP.

Immediately, Rheinmetall stands out, having both the very loved Lynx—the platform that some are leaning towards hard—and the future KF51 Panther. The current timeline is probably the best thing the company could ask for, giving them time for future operators Hungary and Italy to bring the platform into service, and for Rheinmetall to start building out the supply chain ahead of an RFP release.

It isn't perfect, mind you, for Rheinmetall when we start going down the commonality list; but if the idea is for a singular strategic partner? They immediately jump out of the pack. Then again, we don't know what timeline we live in. By 2030, maybe there is also a Hanwha production facility making Redbacks here, by far the biggest anchor the company needs here with Redback being outside the NATO ecosystem.

Same engine family with Redback and K2, similar suspensions; of course, being products of two separate companies is a disadvantage, and the truth is, to meet a lot of the digital and subsystem demands of the RFI—at least to maximize them—there would need to be some specific tailoring.

It also depends on which Redback. K-NIFV might change the equation a bit. Certainly, we won't get a Redback like Australia. That is something we will sadly have to wait and see about. Hanwha has already started building her team for MCAV, slowly and surely, as they do... I am not at liberty, I believe, to speak there.

Either way, the RFIs are out, and they're about what one could expect. They are open, to the point, and leave a lot of room. That I can commend. I like open competitions. It's fun! Both for me as a writer and to watch the drama. It also gives lots of opportunities for wacky and cool solutions!

Hopefully, at CANSEC, a few of the key players will take the leap and show off. Y’all better. I will hound your asses on this now, and I will specifically ask the most annoying questions if I catch you lacking.