Let's Talk About the Canadian Army Deep UAS Capability and Canadian Army Loitering Munitions Projects (and other drones)
Project Updates
When discussing almost any Army projects, the inevitable question of drones is bound to pop up. Doesn't matter what it is. If it exists? Drones will be brought up by someone. We talk a lot about drones here, and for good reason.
They are undoubtedly a significant component of the modern battlespace, and their roles and usage will only grow as cheaper, scalable systems become more accessible globally. Even amongst areas where access to resources and financials is inherently limited, such as Yemen or the Congo, uncrewed systems ranging from cheap quadcopters to dedicated one-way strike drones are becoming more and more prevalent.
Canada, of course, is no different in its desire to expand her autonomous capabilities, something that is often missed by most of the media, who will constantly decry the CAF for not just turning everything into a drone project, be that ships, vehicles, fighter aircraft, pants, shoes, your children. All drones, including you.
So indifferent is the CAF that there exist no fewer than 12 different projects or initiatives tied to acquiring UAS on the docket. That includes unique projects for the AOPS, JSS, and Halifax-class. There is a drone component tied into both Land ISR and Advanced Improvised Explosive Device Detection and Defeat (AIEDDD) projects. Land ISR will replace Raven as an example; the Air Force is looking at Air-Launched Effectors.
There is discussion on leveraging tethered UAS as a quick replacement for the now-cancelled LRSS, and both MCAV and ACV-W are looking at integrating both loitering munitions and dedicated UAS systems into future concepts.
Oh, also Minerva, but we try to not discuss too much about Minerva because it makes the industry people very sad. The point remains, the CAF is well on its way to building a diverse network of both small and large drones across the Army, Air Force, and Navy.
Should we have started sooner? Should we have worked more proactively and maybe aimed to speed up introduction? Sure. Always. We tried with GPUAS, the fun initiative of just copying the U.S. Blue List and giving commanders authority to procure drones of their own volition, using their own financial tools.
That failed through lack of proper authorities, departmental struggles with folks like Transport Canada, and a general lack of drive to make it work. GPUAS failing set us back a good year or two, no matter what some people try to tell me. I refuse to believe its failing was expected or part of the plan. Did get us a bunch of Teal 2s, though, and they're cute, so there's that.
Anywho, the point today isn't to necessarily highlight all of these projects at once, because truthfully that wouldn't likely read out well. Instead, I wanna focus today on two specific Army drone projects that I think have been generally missed by the public discussion. Those being the Canadian Army Deep UAS Capability (CADUC) and Canadian Army Loitering Munitions (CALM) Project.
The Projects
I have started to realize that highlighting projects early might be of benefit, especially with current rumors. Both of these projects are fairly early in development. I should also note, CALM is a separate project from the previous Loitering Munition UOR that is delivering Switchblades to Latvia.
That is a separate project that is unrelated to CALM, even if both are related to loitering munitions. CALM is very simple as it exists now. It aims to provide an organic, tactical-level precision strike capability to the Canadian Army through the use of loitering munitions.
CALM, as a concept, is quite open at the moment, save the requirement that munitions must provide both an anti-personnel and anti-armour precision strike capability to units in complement to other assets like the future PAX-R and PAX-M capabilities acquired through the Land Anti-X project.
As of now, CALM is in the Identification stage, with a potential RFI expected sometime in 2028. Contract Award is set for ~2030/31 with IOC in 2033. As always, though, with projects in Identification, timelines are about as firm as very sad Jell-O, and as such should be treated more as vague expectations. Sometimes it's quicker, lots of times later.
Sadly, Polymarket won't let us bet on that stuff, so we can only discuss for fun. Either way, CALM is fairly open right now to the scale and classes of loitering munitions they want. Whether they are looking for a singular system or, more likely, a family of munitions to fulfill their requirements (like the Switchblade or UVision Hero) remains to be seen.
While also discussed, CALM is distinct from longer-range One-Way Effectors. CALM's specific mandate is for tactical precision strike, and as such, longer-range strike capabilities are outside its mandate. To what degree does CALM aim to provide that capability? I can't say. I have not heard of any firm requirements at this time.
On the flipside is CADUC, the Canadian Army Deep UAS Capability. CADUC aims to replace the Army's existing UAS capabilities with a dedicated unit of long-range UAS suitable to support Division operations.
This includes tasks such as long-range ISR, strike, and target acquisition for the future CA Division. CADUC is expected to replace most, if not all, existing drones in this category, such as the CU-172 Blackjack. While no requirements are firmly out there, and I have asked, the expectation is that CADUC might similarly not be one drone, but either a family of drones or a system, like the Polish WB Group Gladius, that provides a common system integrating multiple drones.
As of now, there is just no info to really go off of. It will very, very likely be a Class I or even Class II-sized platform capable of integrating multiple payloads. Whether it has the ability to utilize its own munitions is up in the air, but I am told it is desired.
In terms of timelines, there does seem a desire to get an RFI/RFP out sometime next year, with a contract signed ~2030 with IOC in 2032. That is the last timeline I have heard, though there are rumors it might be sped up. That drives us to the big reason to mention them.
We talked about it in the newsletter, but I thought it important enough to make a post. There have been several rumors going around that Canada is looking to acquire, or is negotiating the purchase of, UAS systems from NATO allies like Poland and Turkey.
Building Partnerships
Polish media has gone outright to saying that there is a commitment there, though no one on the government side will confirm such a thing to me at this time. With Canada leading on the MSPO show this year, there is an expectation that Canada will announce something in line with Poland at the event. This is currently the leading idea.
To quote Polish media speaking to Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz:
"We will sell the best Polish equipment to Canada," Kosiniak-Kamysz declared after signing the agreement. He pointed out that the primary focus is on the sale of Polish drones, including FlyEye, Warmate, and Gladius systems, products of the WB Group.
Of course, I always take such rumors with a dose of speculation and skepticism. Especially when there is no upcoming project set to award, nor anything coming close that would align with such an acquisition.
Previously, we have reported on Canadian officials' discussions with allied industry on UAS. Over the last few years, CAF, DND, and DIA officials have made a note of the need to rapidly onboard and expand Canada's UAS capabilities, both in terms of equipment and expanding the Defence Industrial Base.
A large part of that is exploring collaborative avenues with allies, and areas where Joint Production and Strategic Partnerships can be established. Most of these efforts, admittedly, are on the Ukrainian front. That includes recent partnerships like Sentinel R&D-Airlogix, Volatus-UCan Brave Tech, and a rumored partnership through GDLSC.
But they ain't the only ones. Canada has also had negotiations and discussions with other players, including at least one UK company, the German-based Helsing, Pablo Air (now partnered with IMT), Hanwha, Lockheed, and a few others on the UAS front when it comes to domestic production and licensing of UAS systems.
Even some provinces are getting involved. Quebec has reportedly had their own independent discussions, and Alberta is rumored to be courting the Estonian CUAS company Frankenburg Technologies about potential collaboration.
On the Turkish front, the primary company officials have been talking with is Baykar. They ain't the only one, but that is the one where there is primarily our interest, pushed on by the desire of the Turkish market to once again access Canadian products like Wescam. You didn't hear that one from me, but there is a mutual benefit pathway there.
Back to the Polish front, the interest is related mainly to WB Group. Gladius, FlyEye, and Warmate all have interest, but primarily Gladius is what I have heard discussed. Previously we had reported that these talks were not super serious, but we are told they are actually active and considered by both sides to have a viable pathway to a contract. So we clarify that apparently, things were farther along than we thought.
Gladius is an interesting system. It is a fully integrated reconnaissance and strike UAS system that pairs FT-5 tactical reconnaissance drones with precise strike effectors, specifically the BSP-U and WARMATE series of loitering munitions, into a single platform, allowing Gladius to operate as a self-contained “identify-target-strike” platform.
The FT-5 acts as the primary Sense platform, utilizing a modular payload system to integrate a multitude of different sensors. This can include traditional visual and thermal cameras, electronic intelligence (ELINT) packages, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems. The FT-5 can remain airborne for up to 10 hours in its standard configuration, at ranges of 150+ kilometers.
For strike capabilities, the system relies on the BSP-U and WARMATE 5/10. This gives the Gladius the capability to hit targets well beyond the 100-kilometer range; these upgraded munitions offer a substantial increase in destructive power compared to earlier models.
They feature swappable warheads in the 5 to 10-kilogram range, allowing operators to customize the strike by choosing between armour-piercing (HEAT) charges to destroy heavy vehicles or high-explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) options for softer targets.
All of this is then fed into WB Group's proprietary "EyeQ" AI software, which scans the data to automatically detect and classify potential targets. All of this is further integrated under WB Group's TOPAZ battlefield management system.
Overall, Gladius seems like a fantastic system with fantastic capabilities, all developed by Polish industry. Future developments of the Gladius system under the Gladius II project will further extend these capabilities by adding new munitions and systems able to reach out several hundred kilometers.
It's the kind of system a lot of those online would be salivating over, so I expect any sort of discussion of Gladius would be wild. I could understand why there could be interest. Gladius could fit into the requirements of both CADUC and CALM, while also managing to still be more under the Gladius II initiative.
I do note, though, that any talk of Polish drones is ALSO separate from these two projects as far as I know, and my expectation is that any Polish acquisition is likely to be limited, likely only as an augment for Latvia. I am not privy to those details, and I am happy to be proven wrong.
Either way, such discussions are both healthy and good. I am happy to see them. In an ideal world, building the DIB would be a healthy mix of both supporting domestic industry and through partnership and development of mature platforms with allies, where Canadian industry could hopefully have some access to both experienced partners and available IP.
Both, to me, are credible pathways that need to work in tandem. I don't believe in a lot of the recent mentalities I have seen arguing one or the other. I believe it is highly dependent, and needs to be examined through a lens of both capacity and capability on a micro level. No two capabilities or areas are the same. On something like UUV? That is an area domestic industry can lead itself; we have that capacity. UGV? Same thing. UAS? I think there is more room there to be collaborative, especially when we're talking about a CAF with potentially thousands of different Class I and II UAS.
There are some who will no doubt argue, and no doubt protest what they see as Canada taking a foreign way out, but I believe the scale of UAS acquisition, and the diverse range of systems we will require, from small Class I, Tactical UAS, MALE, and CCA, provide enough of a playing field where we can create a healthy mix of industry, benefiting in the short and medium-term from allied systems and technology that can be rapidly onboarded as capabilities, and a long-term Canadian UxS industry.
It isn't black and white here, in my eyes. Not with UAS, and I am happy to see the government engaged heavily with allied industry here. I think it is the proper approach to things. I have always been a person who would argue for playing favorites and trying to form strategic partners out of people. It is, to me, the only sustainable way to truly compete internationally and build the Defence Industrial Base in the Short and Medium-Term.
So certainly, and I'll admit, I am not always gonna be the arbiter of fairness and competition. There are some cases where I feel such choices are easily justifiable, and that is okay. That is sadly what we have to due as an isolated market, positioned on the outside of where our export potential is, who is playing severe catchup to almost everyone.
The CAF alone can not support the entire Base, and we can't expect Canada to catch up on it's own in any reasonable timeframe. That means we will have to leverage others, and find ways to draw outside industry in to help form part of that base. I will always support Canadian SME, and I believe we do have lots of capability here, but in the short-term? That Canadian layer can't hold up everything like Atlas.
That means in cases like this? We might have to do the unorthodox, might have to put aome effort to support people. Outside Primes will always be part of our ecosystem, but we have the power to choose which ones we work with, and which ones we put our efforts in courting. That includes looking outside the box to allies like Poland, or an Estonia, Czechia.
Either way, it seems like this is the path forward. My previous dismissal seems to have been short-sighted and a bit arrogant on my part, dismissing this through a traditional lens of looking for matching projects.
That doesn't seem the case, and I feel increasingly we will see such developments, where the Federal government chooses to push capabilities, like potentially this and GlobalEye, if they see a viable path of collaboration and partnership that falls into line with the mandate of the Defence Industrial Strategy (and ONSF but lets be real, the Feds aint exactly caring for it anymore)
If there is a path to partnership, investment, and especially IP? The DIA seems willing to push things to the side and take that leap. That makes things as an analyst a bit tricky, because the traditional model of lining up might not always be the case, and we just have to accept that.
Remember the Fuhr model we discussed this week! You're either a Partner, Customer, or Hostage. That is the mentality you can expect to see proliferate among the DIA, and it a model, though unofficial, that ine needs to consider in such analyses.
That creates another layer, another player, another avenue to see things. I won't lie that it adds excitement, but Lord knows it adds another thing to my plate to look out for! That's always fun. I guess we'll see in September if this comes to fruition. It definitely seems like they're trying.