Let's Talk with Noah (01/20/26): GBAD, LAV, CFLEW Mod, ATGM

Q&A

Happy Tuesday!

You know how you guys always tell me I do to much? And how I put way to much on my plate at given times? This is one of those cases. My days the last two weeks have been super stressful and busy. Between articles, meetings, and other work outside of here it's been a lot.

As part of that, I could only get to fifteen out of the twenty-five questions today as it is what I have tome for. Fear not though! I plan to answer the other 10 in a second part later this week for those of you who missed. Yes, that is extra, but it destresses me a bit and still gets it done to where I feel it is fair on all of you.

To all of you who's questions ain’t here today, im sorry! You will get them Thursday or Friday lol. I promise. This one was also getting very long. It was already 4000 words nearly, so even though not the most questions asked this one was likely gonna be the longest with all 25 questions.

So maybe it's better for super long ones to do a little split? I know the 7000 word Q&A had mixed reactions. A lot of you felt it was too long and daunting. What do you guys think?

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. Will there be an air defense and mortar carrier version of the LAV coming anytime soon?

Maybe! They exist and I have photos from CANSEC to prove it (assuming you have not seen them)

The Mortar variant itself uses the Swiss RUAG Cobra, a modular, turntable-mounted 120 mm smoothbore mortar system that is integrated into the hull of an ACSV. The Cobra features a fully electric drive system for precise traverse and elevation, replacing traditional hydraulic mechanisms to reduce weight and maintenance requirements.

The system also utilizes a semi-automatic loading device that reduces crew fatigue and ensures consistent cycle times, enabling a maximum rate of fire of approximately 10 rounds per minute at an effective range of 7 to 9 kilometers depending on the projectile type.

Cobra is equipped with an integrated ballistic computer and Fire Control System (FCS) that allows for automatic gun laying and "shoot-and-scoot" tactics, with the ability to fire the first round within 60 seconds of halting. The FCS also supports Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI).

Cobra is a more traditional approach compared to something like the Patria Nemo. It's also significantly cheaper while offering 80% of the capability, so there is a trade off of course. With Canada looking for up to 99 120mm Mortar systems as part of IFM though? Platforms like Cobra offer a viable, easy and cheap to produce system that can be quickly pumped out at scale. At least thats the GDLS-C approach to things.

I think Cobra is a cool system. It offers fairly comparable caoabilities to something like NEMO, even if there are obvious sacrifices. Thats for a proper comparison though.

As for the GBAD variant? It's just the existing Sgt. Stout system used on Stryker. There is no difference between the two, which like, yeah I get it. If something exists on Stryker it makes sense to shift it over to the wider LAV family, especially if requirements align.

It's essentially just integrating Moog's Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP) turret and the Leonardo, formerly Rada, Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar. Now I think Moog's RIwP system is really cool, and I have long advocated for it or a similar universal RWS that offers a true highly-modular, open architecture system that can be integrated onto a number of different platforms.

RIwP does that really well by all accounts, so it's absolutely a platform I am highly interested in. They've done a good job especially at building out a massive catalog of different munitions that could be integrated by a user like us. I believe right now it stands at over a hundred? That includes VSHORAD systems like Stinger, Starstreak, Mistral or Long-Range Anti-Tank missiles like JAGM, SPIKE, and Brimstone.

It leaves the door especially open for what we might want. I won't list everything but you get the idea. It seems like a great, highly-capable VSHORAD setup that could easily swap out between the CUAS and VSHORAD roles.

So yes both systems exist, and are already being advertised for quite a while now. I think they're great potential options for the future.

Q2. Any signs of what GBAD and ATGM systems Army might acquire force-wide beyond the current RBS & Spikes now in Latvia? What would you like to see and why?

Well as of right now there are actually three GBAD projects in the works for the Canadian Army. These are:

• "Uplift" SHORAD-UOR

• Enduring Phase II

• Enduring Phase III

Uplift is essentially the old GBAD project converted into a UOR as far as requirements are concerned. It has the same demands. Companies were asked to provide solutions to both requirements, with a SHORAD system able to engage targets past 5 km, and a VSHORAD system able to target out to at least 5 km.

These systems could include guns, missiles, or even directed energy weapons. It would also include sensors, fire control software, and an integrated, networked C4ISR system. They would also include simulation and training services.

Uplift is slightly controversial. The demands for a system that can both perform effective C-RAM while also handling higher-end threats like subsonic Cruise Missiles, glide bombs, or Class IV and above drones put many companies in a weird spot. A system like NASAMS, as example, isnt tailored to perform thr C-RAM role effectively.

The GBAD requirements themselves are a holdover from the GWOT era. The project itself has been around since 2017, and so never quite kept to the times. Restarting the project would have pushed out the timelines even farther, and so the choice was made to keep the existing requirements for a UOR, so we could get something in Latvia and launch two new phases to look more broadly at whats needed in the modern context.

That is Enduring Phases II and III. Phase II is looking for a SHORAD system and Phase III for a VSHORAD system. We don't know much about these two at this time as they are still in the Identification phase. They are still is a stage where they haven't quite figured out exactly what systems we want to pursue.

Time will tell there. Uplift is actually supposed to award a contract this year. The rumor is that the Raytheon Skyhunter will take it. That was in yesterday's newsletter actually!

Skyhunter is an Americanized version of the Iron Dome. It has always been the favourite for many. It's the one system that is designed to do all of the above, we already use the ELM-2084 (more commonly known here as the AN/MPQ-504), and it's combat proven against a variety of both low and high-end threats.

So it always had that sort of inside track where it lined up really well to what we were asking and had the added benefit of us using the existing radar already. It makes sense from that perspective. I also heard but can't confirm that it has a very nice lead time compared to other systems.

So that's GBAD at this point. As for ATGM? Again in the newsletter we have an update. We should be seeing an RFI sometime this year. The demand is for a Fifth-Generation ATGM, which essentially limits it to SPIKE and Akeron. SPIKE is obviously in service now thanks to the PAXM UOR, however that is actually more of a detriment to products in certain cases as you now have to work even harder to prove there is no bias in a future selection.

I think both systems are great, so I won't argue. Obviously SPIKE has the clear advantage of more users, more proven platform, already in use despite the above but I do think Akeron has a chance here. The plan as I know is for a contract award sometime in 2028/2029? I might have to follow up with people on that.

Q3. GDLS showed off a LAV 6 mk2 last year at CANSEC, is there any talk of the army upgrading to a new version of the LAV with a bigger gun?

So the MK.II LAV, our faithful and forever loved Greg, ia a private proposal from GDLS-C of what COULD be done with thr LAV6 if we wanted. It is a demonstrator and does not try to align with existing requirements for future LAV.

It is highly unlikely that future LAV will be exact to the MK.II proposal. Thats just the nature of things. The Army is currently planning for ALAV, the wider refresh of the LAV fleet. This refresh will support a continuous production model for the LAV fleet that moves away from large, uniform batches and focuses on Agile increments to steadily improve and modernize the LAV fleet.

ALAV is not going to be a massive upgrade put the box. It will be incremental changes and improvements over time. The current discussions are actually looking at whether we may need to look at smaller calibres below 20mm, or whether there is a certain mix that should be investigated.

We aint all in on moving up to 30mm at this time, which should show how the Army is viewing proposals like the MK.II. While it is a cool platform, and would be awesome to have, the current landscape and diacussions ain't playing to it.

Things are fluid right now. More info will come but for now? We're in a discussion period where choices haven't been made.

Q4. I remember a few years back the Army was looking at the development of a stealth snowmobile. What became of that?

That was Loki you're talking about. It was developed by CrossChasm Technologies back in the early 2010. They did some testing of it back in like 2012/2013 and then as far as I know nothing concrete came of it? I know there were weight issues and problems with the battery system that kinda hindered it.

These days platforms like the Polaris TITAN and RMK have militarized variants with a lot of the same features (and more) of the original Loki concept. So commercial, off-the-shelf options have already kinda caught up to that original desire for a stealthy, hybrid platform.

Thats okay mind you. Sometimes trials don't work out. That's why we do them.

Q5. I would love to get a detailed breakdown of SPY7 with Aegis and CMS330 versus SPY6 & Aegis. Probably more of an article though.

Yeah that's absolutely more of an article for me! I am willing to do it if people want! Would you guys want those kinds of comparisons more? I'm willing to do more general stuff like that if you guys have demand for it. I just need the mandate for y'all! I would absolutely write this comparison though.

Q6. I know there's a major EW program, are there any updates you could enlighten us with?

That program you are likely thinking of is the Canadian Forces Land Electronic Warfare Modernization or CFLEW Mod for the acronym people. That is the major, specific Electronic Warfare project on the docket.

Obviously other platforms deal with EW, and we could go into that if people like but that is the specific program you are likely thinking of. CFLEW Mod is really cool. It's part of the broader Land C5ISRT suite of projects like Tactical Communications Modernization (Tac Comms Mod) and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Modernization (ISR Mod)

Those two have active RFI out right now that we've been tracking. It's actually a fairly old project in my books and has been through the RFI stage at various times since 2019.

CFLEW Mod aims to replace existing legacy systems, many of which were acquired during our time in Afghanistan as UOR, with a cohesive, fully Integrated suite of electronic warfare (EW) capabilities instead of the sort of mix-match, ad-hoc capabilities we have today

The three primary areas that CFLEW Mod tries to tackle are Sense, Act, and Shield.

The "Sense" component involves upgrading electronic warfare support equipment to better intercept and identify adversary communications and signals (SIGINT). That means acquiring systems capable of detecting things like modern frequency-hopping radios and drone control signals. It also means systems that can be both easily plug into the future Pan-Domain network and open enough to be able to keep up with enemy countermeasures and electronic developments.

The "Act" component focuses on electronic attack, providing the Army with the ability to jam or disrupt enemy command and control networks. The ability to sever enemy coordination or neutralize drone swarms electronically before they can engage friendly forces is a major component of the future dispersed army. It provides a critical layer of protection on an increasingly digital battlespace. You might hear the term non-kinetic fires used here by certain individuals if you really dig into it.

Lastly, "Shield" capabilities are designed to provide indications and warnings to protect friendly forces from electromagnetic targeting. Pretty simple explanation in my books.

Right now CFLEW Mod is in the definition phase with the last timeline I can remember for it being a contract award in 2028/2029 and IOC early 2030s. We should see a lot more of it this year.

Q7. Any updates on GBAD? I recently saw mention of the RBS 70 mounted on a light vehicle for the CAF in Latvia. Is that part of the original UOR order?

So the original order does include a vehicle acquired to act as a transport for GBAD teams. DEW was left to that choice and they subcontracted Cambli to provide the Blackwolf for that role. Now, mounting it on the Blackwolf would be a new development.

However Cambli has shown off an RBS-70 mounted Blackwolf at CANSEC last year. Here's my photo of it!

So yeah this is likely what is being discussed. The Blackwolf is already available and selected for this role... sort of... they've already shown off the concept at the least.

Q8. What will happen to the current stock of the c7/8s when replaced under CMAR? Scrapped, sold/donated or war stock?

No clue. I can't say I've ever asked. I have heard about stockpiling of small arms, especially with the concept of an expanded supplementary reserve, however I have not heard anything I consider official.

Q9. Has there been any consideration given to mounting the M777 on a truck, as a stopgap measure for the CAF based in Latvia while waiting for new mobile artillery?

No. Not in the slightest. We know the plan for the M777 once IFM comes online. They're gonna be tossed into storage in case they're ever needed.

However, for some of you older folks you might remember the RDM Technology MOBAT that we tested back in the early 2000s being a very similar concept.

That was a 105mm but the concept is not new to us lol.

Q10. Does the CAF consider the LAV 6 an IFV or an APC, or something in between?

The government will tell you that the LAV6 is an IFV. You might also hear Armoured Fighting Vehicle used by mainly thr older crowd I find. Tehcnically, by definition you can call a LAV6 an IFV, however some will very angrily argue you on that.

But officially? They are classed as an IFV.

Q11. Has the CAF ordered munitions yet for the RCD and does it include Tomahawk?

We have made a few orders, but not much yet. That isn't terribly uncommon considering how far the River-class is out. We have rumors that some munitions packages for the RCAF and RCN are coming this year, so perhaps we will get spoiled there.

I won't count previous ESSM Block II or MK.54 orders here just because they're technically meant for existing platforms, even if that supply will carry over. We have ordered SM-2 Block IIIC specifically for the River-class. That FMS for up to 100 was approved back in 2020 at an estimated cost of $500 million.

We have yet to actually order Tomahawks, NSM, or SM-6. All of which are either confirmed or in the case of SM-6 highly rumored but basically expected. Those will all come eventually.

Q12. Germany is equipping 209 Pumas with MELLS anti tank missiles. Is that a good idea for the LAVs? Seems like a useful capability?

Yes. I think integrating an ATGM capability onto the LAV would be a very good thing. Given the LAV6 a long-range strike capability in it's own regards would be a massive boost to its currently limited lethality.

Canada already has a severe lack of ATGM capacity. The exclusion of the LAV creates a wide gap that essentially leaves the army with either more limited man-portable caoabilities, relying on the Leos, or relying on the RCAF for further Anti-Tank, Anti-Fortification capabilities.

To me it isnt a question. I don't think many would argue against it. I think almost everyone agrees its a needed capability to have on at least some of the LAV fleet.

Q13. Will the M777 howitzer go to the reserve Artillery Regiments?

No they're going into long-term storage where they will remain as long as they're able to. The RCA doesn't want the reserves operating a different 155mm platform to whatever IFM produces. They are very adamant about that.

However the M777 still have life, and might have uses in the future. So we have elected to store them until such a time as they're needed.

Q14. If CPSP went with the KSS-III, what do you think we would do with the space used for VLS? I read somewhere about possibly launching UUVs, but what what else?

You could launch UUV from it. I know because I spoke to Steve Jeong about it on the podcast lol. Thats the one thing about VLS. It isnt so much what exists for it, not always, but the futureproofing it provides by having that extra, larger apace compared to the Torpedo Tubes.

Futureproofing is important. You dont asl what exists now and what you need now but rsther what could things look like in twenty years? What new caoabilities could this offer? That could be UUV, or new missiles. It could be things like decoys. The Koreans have discussed something like IDAS but launched from the VLS.

VLS gives you some room for future growth that the torpedo tube doesnt, and yes it does take up space itself. However it does give you some level of reasonable assurance that you have it available.

That's the kind of debate you need to have with platforms like this.

Q15. Given its Canadian content requirements, does CDC lock out practically all non-Canadian ship builders, leaving Vigliance team, Davie, Seaspan?

Mostly yeah. The yards that could do CDC are either working on their own designs or have existing partners. There might be room for someone to partner with a smaller yard like Groupe Naval, but it isn't very likely.

That's by design, of course. That is assuming the navy gets all that it wants though. It might not be that simple. However no matter what it will be built here, and that alone puts massive restrictions on who can be involved.

Davie and Seaspan have their own designs. Ontario and Vard are teaming. That leaves Irving. Everyone else is unlikely to get any CDC contract, lets be honest.

---

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.