Let's Talk with Noah (01/05/26) (7000+ Words Edition): Torpedoes, lots of CDC, Tanks, LRASM, PRSM, A bunch of mini updates, TRACKX, and some personal questions

Q&A

Happy Monday!

We're back to our regularly scheduled content, and what better way to get into things than by doing the biggest edition of Let's Talk yet! I know, I say that every week, but this time I mean it! Over thirty questions! Nearly 7500 words! I felt bad for the short posting last week, so wanted to start this week with a fun treat.

We got over fifty questions this week, many very similar. I apologize if I didn't get to you this week. I tried my best to get to as many as I could!

As always you can ask your questions, and vote on others, over on our Slido page. It will be up until Monday! A lot of you sent stuff in DMs also but I prefer the stuff there as it can be voted on and also kept open to everyone. If you enjoy my content also consider supporting TNSR over on our Kofi!

---

Q1. MGen Smyth mentioned a desire for a Combat SAR capability. Is there any more information on what this might look like?

I can't say personally what the plan is at this time, as it has been long enough since I heard this discussed that my info would likely be inaccurate. When I heard it brought up, the idea was lumped in with a general shift towards the American style of rotary operations.

In more basic terms, it's been discussing what we need to do in regards to nTACS to be able to perform Combat Search and Rescue, and how that looks for us. That's the only time I myself have discussed CSAR with people. Usually, that comes up in the discussion for what kind of assets we need to perform that mission.

It is recognized that Canada has long lacked the needed capabilities to effectively perform SAR in a contested environment. We recognized that in the aftermath of the Chinook shootdown in 2010. We recognized that potential issue in Mali. We recognize it now.

Typically, those discussions lean into the need for a dedicated escort/attack helicopter and the need for a utility helicopter with the payload and capabilities to undertake the SAR role efficiently. What exactly does that look like? I can't say. I have never heard it discussed. However, it is an active conversation.

It is likely that we will adopt a model very similar to what the United States does in this regard. Of course, this wouldn't only include rotary assets. It will include things like Autonomous Systems, Command and Control infrastructure, communications equipment, dedicated CSAR equipment, and other aerial assets.

CSAR is a multifaceted task that can include a number of different assets working in tandem with each other. However, I have not heard of what that concept looks like other than discussions on how the role can be fulfilled with our future rotary fleet.

So I apologize that I can't be of a bit more help! The future Manoeuvre Division will be getting an American-style Combat Aviation Brigade if the RCAF cooperates, so looking at how the Americans do CSAR is likely a good basis to look at for lack of better information.

I can certainly look or ask around, but no promises on what I'll find. Perhaps the nTACS RFI will paint a clearer definition of what exactly is expected.

Q2. When the Army ultimately orders a new tank, how many tank regiments are they projecting to equip?

The plan is for 1 CMBG to have two Tank Regiments while 2 CMBG and 5 GBMC get MEDCAV. The current Leopard fleet will be replaced sometime in the 2030s under the Heavy Direct Fire Modernization project. There isn't a real solid timeline, and numbers are still being discussed AFAIK.

Keep in mind it’s a very young project, so a lot of info just doesn't exist or will change very rapidly. Just a few months ago we were talking about a refurbishment! So while we have an initial estimate of $10 billion for the replacement, I wouldn't trust any numbers at this time.

Q3. With future blocks of RCD planning to increase the number of VLS, what length of launchers are they looking at?

Outside ExLS, which is dead and buried on Mars, it has always been Strike-length discussed. I have not heard any concrete info on the Navy looking at Tactical, but never say never.

We're still a long way from any decisions of Batch II being cemented, and while I'm sure the Navy would love to get 48 Strike-length cells, I don't know how possible that is without touching the Mission Bay or other cuts for weight/space.

So if it comes down that Tactical-length is what will fit in certain scenarios? That's what we'll likely get. However, I have only heard Strike-length discussed around for future Batches myself.

Q4. The navy has quite the lengthy wish list. The NSS seems to stifle the build time. Are there talks of opening it up to more yards to speed things up?

It's discussed fairly regularly, especially as more and more is added to the docket. You'll still see a majority of the work going to the Big 3. There are no plans to change the current packages the yards have.

The Provinces have been pushing for smaller yards to be more involved, and unsolicited proposals like Vigilance envision smaller yards like Ontario doing the construction.

However, almost all the major work will still be undertaken by the big yards. There will be opportunities on the horizon for smaller yards, such as with the Mid-Shore Multi-Mission vessels and the Orca replacement, but when it comes to things like the proposed Arctic ships and CDC?

Those are likely to stay in the purview of the larger yards. Seaspan and Davie both have the excess capacity to fit CDC into their schedule and plan to bid, assuming the project goes through, and building a combatant isn't something you can just be selected to do and jump into.

There are numerous proposals from the Big 3 to expand capacity. There always are. There are always pathways presented to decrease timelines. It's on government to take the initiative and determine it wants it and, often, is willing to help fund it. We've decided the timelines we want are the right balance of getting hulls in the water and providing long-term, stable work to the Big 3 yards and a number of smaller yards.

That can change if the government wants to take that ball and run with it, however, you aren't likely to see it coming from outsourcing work to smaller yards. The best we got is Davie convincing the Federals to start construction of the Arpaituq in Helsinki. That choice was made because it’s the only way we can meet the 2030 timeline that we need her in.

It isn't a precedent, even though I have argued for the Federal government to look into building one or two MPI at Rauma with the Yanks to get hulls in the water quicker. The desire isn't there federally, and if it is? Investment will go to the Big 3 before anyone.

That isn't to say a CDC couldn't go to an Ontario, but it isn't likely in my books. We don't know how a project like CDC will fall into NSS, or if it will even be open to smaller yards yet. That's mainly because it isn't funded, is still in the Options Analysis phase, and still deciding exactly what the final product will look like.

So while I would love to see more yards get work, there are a lot of hurdles to jump to meaningfully get it.

Q5. Any updates on an ATGM for the rest of the army? (Given relations with Israel have gotten frosty, would they have to go through another selection competition?)

It would always have to go through competition. The PAXM UOR doesn't have a provision for expanding orders to the rest of the Army. In fact, a product selected as part of a UOR actually has more hurdles to jump over as you have to prove there's no bias in the selection, and a UOR provides ample space to make that claim.

The plan last I heard was for a contract award around 2027/2028. I heard some people talking about an RFI dropping this year, which I think is very likely, but I have zero timelines.

There are really only two options on the market for a fifth-generation ATGM for us, and that's SPIKE and Akeron. Despite what some think, I have seen no hindrance or reluctance to Israeli products ever discussed.

While there might be some who would like to obviously avoid the political backlash, if an Israeli system is determined to be the best pick, I don't think we would turn it away. I have seen zero indication of such things.

I actually like both SPIKE and Akeron. I think both are really cool systems. I wouldn't complain about either, although SPIKE obviously is a more developed and mature system in far wider service among our allies. It won't be merely discounted here. I expect a tough competition either way though.

Q6. Any more confirmation that 427 is getting MH60Ms and not standard UH60Ms?

Not since last weekend! As I mentioned there, consider it more RUMINT. Some people are saying it's MH-60M, and there is some logic behind such a choice, but it’s still RUMINT. It has not gone through my usual verification process. If I hear anything new, believe me, I'll let you guys know!

Q7. Have there been any updates on desired capabilities or performance objectives for CDC?

You can find the latest info about it from my post in November. It provides the most up-to-date snapshot at what's been discussed publicly. I'll also provide the wikibox here for those who might have missed it:

I feel it needs to be said, but the info you see here is based off what has been publicly discussed as desired primarily by Vice-Admiral Topshee over the last few years.

CDC remains in the Options Analysis phase. It is unfunded, uncommitted, and the final requirements and capabilities are still being worked out. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it. We should. We also do need to use what info is said as a baseline even if it might change.

However, it is good to keep in mind that what we report, and what is said, is still unofficial and speculation. It is a wishlist, not a statement of requirements. I feel that needs to be said with the mainstream media starting to pick up on these things.

Q8. With the mention of the potential switch to the MK 45 on the CSC, why not go to the Oto 76 for even more weight savings?

I know some people who would love to do it lol, or even go down to the 57mm. However, the River-class still has a requirement for Long-Range Fire Support and Shore Bombardment, both of which are something that having a 127mm main gun is just objectively superior for.

The MK 45 is a highly capable system even if I believe the OTO 127/64 is superior. It's also larger and several tonnes heavier. The MK 45 is supposed to be the balanced approach here. It's also already integrated into everything. That might change in the future, but that's where I imagine the thought process is.

The Brits, Aussies, and likely Norwegians are also sticking to the MK 45 as well, so platform commonality is a bonus to me. Sometimes there are just capabilities you wanna keep on hand, even if you can't get the best option.

Q9. Any plans to turn CFS St. John's into a full CFB and base arctic designated ships/submarines there? Maybe add Prince Rupert as a CFS for arctic logistics?

There are no plans that I am aware of. While there is a general ongoing look at infrastructure, I have never heard anyone discuss this.

While it's accepted that St. John's and Prince Rupert respectively are the northernmost facilities available year-round to the RCN, that doesn't automatically make them better for what you're suggesting.

I have advocated for expanding what is done at places like St. John's, however, that needs to come with discussions on whether the investments needed in infrastructure, supply chains, workforce development, and the actual net benefit all equal out better than expanding facilities in Halifax/Esquimalt.

That doesn't mean they don't have a future role to play, but St. John's as a full base? That might be a bit of a stretch there. Prince Rupert as a CFS? I could maybe see it. I wouldn't rule it out, but I would like to see the plan and such. I think it's something the Navy would potentially consider, but again, need to ask the above first. I would be curious enough to consider it.

With the CCG under the DND banner though, we can also now ask how the Navy might leverage existing CCG infrastructure and vice-versa. That could open up some interesting possibilities. It's an ongoing discussion that might help alleviate some of the infrastructure issues, or at least present new solutions to the current lack of things like berthing space.

Q10. Since the CDC envisioned a "minifax" why not unbolt the weapons systems radars sensors from the Halifax and repair/upgrade them and bolt them on the new CDCs?

I mean, that depends on what the Navy says it wants. What if they don't want anything similar off the Halifax-class? What if the suppliers are tasked with providing the sensor packages?

Keep in mind that CDC is at minimum a decade out, to which many of the systems on the existing Halifax will be reaching obsolescence or at the least be outdated. By that point, upgrading might not be an option, or if it is, might not necessarily be cheaper than buying new equipment. You also don't know what will be on the market a decade from now.

With any new class of ship, it's always preferred to acquire new equipment for obvious reasons. While the Halifax-class, especially with the Underwater Warfare Suite Upgrade (UWSU), remain very capable vessels, the timeline for CDC is so far out that such an idea really becomes impractical unless absolutely needed.

That, or assuming major systems are modernized or replaced with semi-modern equipment by the time CDC comes online that justifies the value of switching them over. Which is very unlikely.

Q11. Does the RCN plan to stick with the MK48 torpedo after acquiring its new submarines?

No. We've talked about it before, but the RCN will adopt whatever is available for the given submarine chosen. That has always been the case. We maintain a small supply of aging MK48s, the production line is struggling to keep pace with demand, and it is far easier to just go with what works for those subs than to keep the MK48.

Now, theoretically, both subs have multiple potential options available. Hanwha has advertised they're ready to integrate whatever torpedo we want, though we would likely stick to Tiger Shark. The 212CD has both the future DM2A5 and plans to integrate the Italian Black Shark as well.

If we wanted something else? I'm sure both sides could accommodate, however, the plan is to adopt what is available and will work out of the gate.

Q12. Disregarding the history of our airborne forces, do you foresee the reestablishment of a dedicated airborne regiment instead of the current set up?

The current plans for the future Manoeuvre Division include grouping the Light Infantry under a dedicated Light Infantry Regiment, with provisions to expand it into a dedicated Brigade if needed.

They will have a similar, though modernized, mandate to the old Airborne Regiment. They might not parachute in places but will have a similar role as a semi-independent, globally deployable, rapid response force.

That is about the closest you will see to the old airborne in the modern setting.

Q13. I know G-LAAM is more a thought exercise currently. But because the premise is arctic response and autonomy, what armament should it have? (VLS, for example?)

It would have a similar armament to other support ships in its class that aren't the fucking Italians who decide to stick three 76mm guns and VLS onto their ships. I really do love Trieste, don't get me wrong. Some people find her weird but I think she's beautiful.

The proposal for GLAAM includes a 57mm main gun in addition to several MK 31 GMWS. I think that is fair enough for a ship of her class. It aligns with almost everyone else. Adding VLS to a vessel like this means sacrificing space elsewhere, and GLAAM is already a tightly packed, do-everything vessel as is.

I don't see the value of a VLS system for a vessel like this at the risk of sacrificing capabilities elsewhere, especially for a primarily Arctic concept where VLS isn't really needed. Outside there, that's what the River-class and future CDC would be for. They have a self-defence capability, and that is fair enough for where we expect them to operate, in my opinion.

Perhaps the inclusion of some 30mm Lionfish in addition to the MK 31 for CUSV/CUAS work would be a nice addition I could get behind. After last week, I have also grown to like the idea of a cheap, small Drone-on-Drone interceptor as well for CUAS duties. Something that adds an additional layer without taking much space or weight.

Q14. Can you see a use case for the Patria CAVS or TrackX for the army reserve as part of domestic mobility?

I love Patria as a company, and I find both CAVS and TrackX to be very interesting vehicles. However... I could not support purchasing them for the domestic role, not unless they are produced here. Even then, for CAVS, I see less use as Canada, if it desired a 6x6 vehicle for domestic work, has the domestic industry to easily produce such a vehicle.

See, for any domestically focused vehicle, my first question is if we can do it ourselves. If we can? We should, zero questions asked. That's how you support the Defence Industrial Base. We can produce a vehicle like TrackX domestically if we desired. I know we could.

Similarly, I feel an articulated vehicle provides the optimal solution for Canada's Arctic, where their flexibility and familiarity are of far more value than a platform like TrackX, which leans much more into the APC role than the support vehicle that I think is of most value to us.

We don't face the risk of ground incursions, at least significant ones, in the Arctic. What we need is a workhorse, a pickup that can quickly be adapted to multiple roles, be that hauling people, equipment, or acting as C2 platforms.

That's what an articulated vehicle provides. A base vehicle that can quickly swap out different modules depending on the role needed. That's the kind of vehicle that works for us up North.

Evidently, others like the Finns obviously do have that threat of incursion, and so the need for a vehicle like TrackX becomes more clear in that context. We don't have that. It's a product of different environments.

If we needed something like TrackX? I think we could do it here, do it Canadian, with a proper Canadian supply chain. That's especially important for a vehicle you primarily envision as a domestic platform.

Q15. Any word on when they will start looking at the leopard replacement? And do you think they will go with something like the CV90120 or K2 Black Panther?

As we said above, the Heavy Direct Fire Modernization project is currently underway with delivery set for sometime in the 2030s. We have no real timelines to go off of at this time, nor requirements.

My thinking is that we're looking at another Main Battle Tank, not a Medium Tank like the CV90120. Of course, that's just me guessing, because again this is a very young project that could probably be written on the back of a napkin and still have room left for future additions.

So at this time, we can only take a blind guess. We had a Leopard modernization on the books before pivoting to a full replacement. That happened with IFM too. There was a Self-Propelled Howitzer UOR proposed that got canned because it was determined that focusing on a full replacement was the better course of action.

We still have Heavy Armour in the doctrine. It still shows up in Inflection Point. It's part of modernization. I can't see it not being a Main Battle Tank. I do like the idea of the CV90120, especially because of potential commonality with MEDCAV.

I think it's an insanely cool platform, and I wouldn't be against investigating if there is a role for something like that as a complement. Especially when we don't fully know what MEDCAV will fully look like. I would love to hear the argument and see the possibilities more broadly discussed for what the future looks like in that regard.

However, in this specific debate? I don't think there is a pathway where we don't end up with a Main Battle Tank at this point in time. There might be room for a Medium Tank that is scalable and easier to produce, more flexible, and potentially positioned well for a future conflict that focuses on dispersed, rapid response operations where lighter, more transportable and easier to manage platforms might be highly valuable.

That is not to discount Heavy Armour, however, there can be a role for a Medium Tank in certain environments that we might be expected to participate in in the future.

Q16. How will the current CF-35 acquisition pause impact RCAF fighter aircraft availability and commitments in the short and long term?

Not as much as one might think, at least not yet. Canada has committed to 16 of the planned 88 F-35s. The first Canadian F-35 will be delivered to Luke Air Force Base this year where pilots will start training. The plan is for eight to be delivered by the end of 2027 with the first aircraft arriving in Canada in 2028.

IOC is scheduled for 2030 with FOC scheduled for 2033-34. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is some wiggle room here for when we need to commit to our next batch in order to keep to those timelines. We know for a fact, no matter what, that there will be at least one more batch of F-35s ordered. The government plan as I know it isn't to stop at sixteen. That's not enough to even make a viable Squadron.

The government has decided to leverage that wiggle room to keep the review open longer than planned so they can investigate promises and plans. I can't speak for certain when the deadline would be for another order. It's safe to say that likely the latest we could push it out and still meet our timelines is likely early 2027.

That isn't to say that the review could take that long, I don't think it will anyways. The point is that right now, even with the delay, things remain on track from the fighter side of things. However, the longer the review drags into the year, the higher risk we take in passing that window and delaying IOC/FOC.

I would still be far more concerned with the infrastructure side of things, which you can read about in our breakdown of the AG report from earlier this year.

Q17. Does the RN's and RAN's Type 26 have the same number of VLS as the River and what are their plans to increase that if any?

The Aussie Hunter-class has 32 MK 41 cells while the Brits have 24 MK 41 like us in addition to two 24-cell Sea Ceptor VLS modules. The Aussies also decided to lengthen the beam by 0.6m on their Hunters primarily to accommodate the additional weight of the CEAFAR radar system.

Often forgotten is that the inclusions on the CEAFAR for the Aussies and SPY/7 for us cut significantly into the growth weight that the Type 26 hull design had available. Original concepts for the River-class has 32 MK 41 cells along with a 6-cell ExLS for CAMM.

The MK 41 cells were cut to 24 as a way to save on cost and weight. The ExLS was cut when we dropped CAMM. The determination was that getting hulls in the water as planned took priority, and as such some things have inevitably had to be cut to ensure that significant delays did not impede on the timeline for the first three.

Vice-Admiral Topshee will happily tell you he would love more cells, and the Navy is investigating how to get more back on future batches. He has openly said he would love up to 48 cells so long as it didn't impact the Mission Bay.

BAE has proposed the Guided Missile Frigate (GMF) variant that cuts in or outright removes the Mission Bay to fit additional cells, up to 96 total to the Aussies as a potential replacement to the Hobart-class. They haven't jumped on the idea, and we would like to keep the Mission Bay fully intact if possible.

The Brits, as far as I know, have no plans to upgrade their Type 26 with additional cells in the future. They plan to stick as configured.

Q18. Since the government RFP for the future fighter lead-in trainer is out, why not buy the Gripen and replace the Tutors at the same time with the same built CDN?

Gripen as a trainer feels so weird to me. I know that ETPS uses Gripen for training, but they are an exception here. I don't see the economic benefit of trying to make Gripen our lead-in trainer. There are already enough dedicated trainers on the market that can easily fill that role cheaper and better than Gripen can IMO.

Keep in mind also, and people forget this, the choice isn't solely ours. CAE is the Strategic Partner on FFLIT. They're the ones developing the program with us. They hold significant sway on what our future trainer could be similar to what they and KF have done with SkyAlyne. I don't think they'll be jumping on Gripen here.

Trying to shoehorn Gripen into that role just to give them a purchase feels a bit desperate on our end. I get the sentiment, but it is the worst possible way to do it. If we don't want Gripen as a fighter, I see no reason to spend the time and money on them as a Trainer or as a demonstration aircraft.

I just can't picture it.

Q19. What future fifth generation threats are there in the Arctic that would require the F-35 to meet them?

Well, the Russians have the Su-57, no matter how much I joke about it. It might not be up to the task as an F-35 but is still likely to be a very capable jet when all is said and done. The Chinese obviously have several potential aircraft in this category with the J-20 and J-35 along with future Sixth-Generation designs in the J-36 and J-50.

While China is not an active Arctic player as you describe, I still want to acknowledge them as an adversarial Fifth and Sixth-gen platform. I also want to acknowledge that platforms like the Su-35SM remain very formidable in the modern setting.

Your question though does let me bring up a small point that often doesn't get discussed much in these conversations. There is a belief that the primary value of the F-35 is that it will be able to match other Fifth-generation aircraft in combat, and that a potential lack of adversarial fifth-gens in the Arctic means that their value decreases to us.

It's something that I hear quite often. Why do we need F-35 if we don't anticipate coming face to face with Fifth-generation jets from say Russia? Ignoring that we do expect platforms like the Su-57 to become far more common, I think a lot of people fall too hard into the "good enough" argument without critically looking at the bigger picture.

Overkill is actually a good thing. There is never too capable. You don't need an F-35 to deal with older Su-35 and such. Yes, most modern Fourth-Generation aircraft available will match or even outmatch them in capabilities.

However, the idea isn't to match or to even just surpass our adversaries' capabilities. We want to maintain as much of an unfair advantage as possible. We want to widen the capability gap as far as possible. You never want to walk into a potential fight with "good enough," you want to walk in with as much of an overkill as possible.

It might sound like a blunt or simple statement, but I never liked this notion of brushing off things as "good enough." No, we don't want to be just good enough. We want a roadmap to be as capable as possible. A Fourth Generation can be in those plans, however, the dismissive nature of the argument has always irked me a bit.

Especially when it's used as a tactic to end debate. Yes. There may be many times an F-35 does not run into a worthy adversary. However, that's not a fault on the F-35, even ignoring that Fifth and Sixth Generation aircraft will become more prolific among our adversaries, and eventually, they will be regular sights.

"Good enough" is actually not enough, and "too much" is where we want to be. You don't want a fair, honourable fight. You want it to be unfair. You want to walk in with a platform that is likely to be 'Overkill' because it ensures your odds of coming out of that fight with minimal losses. That's before we talk about the deterrence factor of ensuring that our adversaries know they would be stepping into a fight heavily in our favour.

So yes, there will be an increase in fifth and sixth-generation threats in the coming years, and even if older, fourth-generation aircraft remain the norm, that doesn't discount the value of having a fifth-generation platform. It actually makes them more valuable in my books.

Q20. Glad you liked my AI question last week. Could the RCN adapt the ACS Bullfrog M134 (or M2) as an effective low cost CIWS layer for drones, etc?

Bullfrog is a cool system at glance. I haven't known it to be installed on naval platforms myself, however, it could if someone wanted. As I said last week, there will be a trend towards more autonomous self-defence systems that will likely flood the market with dozens of potential options.

I do believe we will see more platforms like Bullfrog pop up, and they will of course be adopted or retrofitted across platforms. I don't know much about Bullfrog itself, so I can't endorse the platform but I like the concept presented. I think it's a good glimpse (as we saw last week) at what the future is going to look like in the coming years.

Of course, as Primes catch up and implement their own systems/upgrades they'll obviously take the lead, as time tells us again and again. I do wish companies like ACS the best here! I want to see them succeed.

Autonomous systems like Bullfrog integrated onto a USV to assist in things like River Crossings? Sure, why not. Being experimental is good. We should be asking fun questions like this. They're great thought exercises.

Many naval gun systems already have autonomous capabilities, even if they retain the Human-in-the-loop. Many like Lionfish are already 90% of the way there, and the hold up isn't necessarily a technology issue.

So the pathway is already there, and existing suppliers already have the ability to do it if desired. How far that goes? I can't say. I do think there will be a lot of experimentation in the coming years to figure out what's acceptable and how far we should collectively go.

Q21. Given the desire for more Cormorant, I figure between 3 - 5, is there talk of adding the Search Radar which was deleted to save money?

The Leonardo Osprey AESA radar that the Norwegian AW101-612 uses will not be included in CMLU. I have heard zero talks on it being reconsidered and with work already underway, we're likely past the point where we could reconsider.

Q22. Could Canada (read Bombardier) make its own engines for the Gripen and not worry about US approval?

No. Not in any sort of reasonable timeframe. Gripen will continue to use the F414 engine if we were to select them. They have already built out the support team with GE Aviation and StandardAero in Winnipeg.

GE does maintain production facilities in Bromont and Mirabel, Quebec, but those are limited to compressor blades, engine tubes and vanes. Pratt and Whitney Canada exists, but they produce no suitable engine.

Your best case here is GE licensing production, which ain't happening and doesn't fix your issue in the slightest. Even if you wanted to fit a new engine, and no I won't entertain developing a new one here, that would still require years of testing and certification work that we don't have. We need jets. We need jets sooner rather than later, and that's me being tame. We don't have time to fit new engines.

It's F414 or bust.

Q23. What do you think the final number of submarines that will be ordered 4, 8 or 12?

If you asked me a year ago I would have said it's a tossup, however, I do believe now that we'll get twelve.

The stakes are too high on the economic side of things and the demands from the Federals too significant (like demanding automotive factories) for me to reasonably believe that we're only thinking about eight subs which while significant is not a game-changing amount in the grand scheme.

With the push for CPSP to act as an anchor to a larger economic agreement, twelve subs moves from a high-end requirement to credible leverage in extracting economic investment from either Korea or Germany/Norway. The higher number represents a potential significant increase in the leverage we have in securing that desired investment.

So for those reasons, I believe we will see twelve procured.

Q24. Can the South Korean communication system in the KSSIII work with our NATO allies?

Wanna know a little secret?

It's not Korean... It's actually French! More specifically the KSS-III uses Thales Divesat system. The KSS-III has a lot of French-origin components, at least Batch I. Batch II lowers that significantly.

The KSS-III is fully NATO compatible. It has access to Link 16 and 22. It is compatible with the Cryptographic Modernization Program (CCMP). If communications were a serious issue it wouldn't have gotten this far.

So don't worry too much on that front!

Q25. Any LUV updates?

Afraid not! When something new pops up, I'll make sure to let you all know first! I know you all LOVE LUV.

Q26. Do you plan on writing more about steel on submarines? I am extremely curious to learn more.

Yes! It's a very weird topic for me, because I'm not exactly an expert on this stuff and it can get quite technical and complex. I have been trying my best the last few weeks to study up and learn. I think I'm at the stage where I can write about it though, so you should expect it fairly soon!

Q27. Will CDC have an Anti-Submarine capability like a Hull-Mounted Sonar and Torpedo Tubes?

Yes and maybe. We know that there is a desire for CDC to at least have a Hull-Mounted Sonar and likely a Towed Array. Torpedoes I have never heard anything about, so it is likely up to the bidder if they include it in their design.

We'll get more info if and when an RFI drops. Again, CDC still has a lot it's trying to figure out. A lot of things are up in the air at the moment. We have to wait and see what the final design will include as High-Level Mandatory Requirements.

Q28. I noticed that Canada didn't include PRSM in their purchase of HIMARS, but I thought it was one of the main reasons we were getting it. Are we not getting it now?

PRSM was not included in the initial purchase, however, it is still very much planned. Remember that PRSM has only just entered production recently. We're also still a few years out from HIMARS being delivered, and we can expect that followup purchases for more munitions will be included between now and then. That's the plan I heard at least.

PRSM is on the books. It is coming. There has been funding allocated for its future purchase. I can say that with confidence.

Q29. Any updates on when we should hear about LRASM for the P-8?

We should hear about it in the coming months. It's been in the plans for a while, and while the RCAF just got approved for a massive strike package just a few weeks ago, it's far from the only one they have in the works.

Both LRASM for the P-8 and Joint Strike Missile for the F-35 are still very much in the plans. I can't speak to when we might hear about JSM but I know LRASM was definitely discussed as a 2026 purchase ahead of first delivery of the P-8 in 2027.

LRASM and JSM help fulfill the RCAF's need for a Long-Range Precision Strike and Anti-Ship capability. All three branches have been instructed under ONSF to explore acquiring these capabilities. They are most certainly gonna happen, just a matter of exactly when.

Q30. Is LRSS actually dead?

Yeah, she done. Let her rest now. No, I don’t know exactly what replaces her. There's a lot of hope and excitement around the possibility of tethered drone systems though. Can be brought into service quick, cheaper, scalable, and far better for dispersed operations.

Q31. Will you be coming to DEFSEC West in March?

Maybe. Never say never!

Q32. I'm a new subscriber to your work. I have heard many people praise you and I am very impressed with your work. How does a boy as young as yourself handle it?

Well, at 25 years old now I don't know if I classify as young!

I just kinda work. I have fallen into a routine and pace that works for me. I do a lot, I know. However, it isn't too overwhelming most of the time. Honestly, the Christmas break felt harder than the usual effort I put in. It felt slow, too idle and quiet. I didn't like it.

People rely on me for info, and I feel I owe everyone the duty of trying to keep some sort of pace. It was hard at the start but once you know what you're doing and how to do it? It becomes surprisingly routine and mundane most days.

I enjoy that it's a bit quieter though. It allows me to dedicate less time to posting press releases and more to doing stuff like actual research. Research makes up the bulk of my time. Every hour of writing is usually backed by three or four hours of research.

That can honestly be more draining than writing at times, especially when it involves meeting people (which I do love) and digging hard for very niche, specific info. However, it always feels good to track down something really obscure!

Q33. What's the biggest struggle you have now that you're considered one of Canada’s top defence analysts? Is there anything you wish you could change?

Top is a strong word, and one I wouldn't ever use for myself. I fill a niche in a diverse, wonderful space full of great commentators and talents.

Hawky, Kyle, Chris, Steffan, Pippa, the folks at BetaKit and Icebreaker, Vince at CanadaxEurope, Michael at CanadaxIndo-Pacific, Black Cloud, and all the occasional commentators and posters all add a little bit of something to the space, their own charm, niche.

I also still don't love the term analyst but it best matches, so what can you do? I'm fairly open with my worries and struggles on here. I don't try to hide them. I like to say I'm open with all of you to the best I can. That is especially true about myself.

The biggest struggle? The feeling of needing to always do more, know more. That feeling that I don't know enough and trying to keep up.

For all intents, I've only been really into defence for three years, far less than many even amateur folks. I have a wonderful ability to learn and soak knowledge, but I still have had little time to take everything in.

Of course, I like to believe everyone follows me with the journey in mind, that you all like to see me grow and learn. You follow the journey of my growth, and for that, I am forever grateful to those of you who have taken the time to teach and educate me.

Yet I feel that pressure to need to know more, to be the expert people expect me to be. I love the challenge, and I will say that you have all pushed me to do better, to think more analytically, to keep learning.

Part of the reason I love the Q&A is because I know the questions will keep me sharp, will challenge my knowledge and beliefs. It's my favorite thing I do here honestly.

It's okay to have these kinds of feelings. We all feel the imposter sometimes, like we should be somewhere that we aren't. I am happy where I am. I am happy that I took this leap despite never planning for any of this. I would not change it for the world.

I am a clown. I openly admit that. I'm too silly for the Ottawa life, certainly no professional. I'm too personal to be a full journalist. I can't stand the academic life, and I don't consider myself an OSINT account. I am a boy with a brand. I exist in my own little bubble, floating through the defence multiverse.

And that is fine by me. The struggle is there but I have come to accept my place in everything. This is where I am most comfortable. I don't want to be a public figure, don't want to be out on screens. I like my little community. I like all of you. If this is where my ceiling is? I can be content.

I try my best. I try to learn as much as I can. One day I will be happy with what I know and confident that I can be the expert everyone needs me to be. I do it because I want to help, to educate, and if I can do that for just a few people? I can be happy.

But man... I wish I kept up this passion when I was a teen instead of dropping it. A few extra years to have learned. Can't change the past, not gonna cry over it but it is something I would change.

---

Remember that you can ask your questions for next week by following this link. Dont be afraid to ask multiple questions if you like!

---

Let's Talk is proudly supported by

dominion-dynamics.com

Dominion Dynamics is developing Canada's next-generation Arctic command layer, unifying sensors, autonomous systems, and operators across all domains into a single real-time operating picture. Their energy- efficient, low-latency C2 architecture is purpose-built for extreme northern conditions and fully interoperable with both legacy and future systems, strengthening sovereign capabilities, improving joint decision-making, and enabling adaptable, integrated defence and security operations across Canada's Arctic.