Let's Talk with Noah (01/23/26) (Part II): C-390, CCGS Terry Fox, Twin Otter Replacement, Supporting the USN through ASW?

Q&A

Happy Friday?

I promised a Part 2, and a Part 2 I shall deliver! I know this is fairly late, and I apologize but I wanted to make sure I covered the people I missed on Monday. It isn't fair to all of y'all that I miss some stuff putting to much on my plate.

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. Has the RCAF considered adding fighter sqaudron basing beyond Cold Lake and Bagotville?

There are no plans to add a third permanent base for the RCAF Fighter Squadrons. Any investment or mention of other bases that you might see is related to investing in the proper infrastructure to ensure our existing FOL and other base can temporary host the F-35.

This work is being done under the Defence of Canada Fighter Infrastructure (DCFI) project. This project covers everything from critical Infrastructure like Hangers to things like Information Management/Information Technology systems meant to support the F-35 fleet and bring facilities up to the needed security standards.

That project is supposed to cover everything that falls outside FFCP. Its current budget is ~7 billion. Other projects like the Northern Operational Support Hubs and Northern Basing Infrastructure project will also play a role at developing the Arctic FOLs into modern facilities able to support and host the future F-35 fleet on a need to need basis.

Adding a third base raises significant logistics and cost hurdles that make it difficult to really get behind. It would not only be significantly expensive to bring somwhere like Trenton or Greenwood, as example, up to the needed standards we see at Cold Lake and Bagotville for the F-35, likely for little tactical benefit, but it also means stretching already strained and tight resources even further to support a third base.

At this time the cost is just too significant both financially and in terms of human resources to be justifiable. I can't see it. This idea has been explored, and has been debated but the conclusion comes back the same every time. Canada is big, resources are limited, and platforms like the F-35 require extensive infrastructure and personnel to support them.

It isn't effective to further spread that out.

Q2. The Embraer C-390 Millennium seems like a really neat platform. What would be the pros and cons of adopting it for Canadian use? And would RCAF consider it?

Great question! I think a lot of the discussion is taken up by the A400, for very obvious reasons, however, I also like the C-390! I thinks it's a really cool aircraft and I give props to Embraer for developing a world-class transport.

I tend to not like to compare the two as they exist in different classes. A C-390 is a medium-transport, a example of what a true modern C-130 would look like in size and capability.

The A400 is massive, not a C-17 but compared to others? She's hulking. The A400 is a Mini-Strategic aircraft. Designed to carry significant cargo over long distances.

The A400 is about ten meters longer and three meters taller than the C-390. The C390 has a max payload of 26 tonnes versus 37 (soon to be 40) for the A400. There exists overlap, yes, however both are fundamentally designed for different purposes.

So I don't really like to directly compare. The C-390 is a direct C-130 replacement. It offers improved capabilities in a very similar size, which can be a benefit to leveraging existing infrastructure. It uses a turbofan engine if you like that, which also means it's a faster platform. You sacrifice on range and capacity, but the C-390 by all accounts is a significantly cheaper aircraft as well.

Both are extensively used by our NATO partners. Both have demonstrated the ability to operate efficently in cold climates, though the A400 has been doing extensive Arctic testing and excursions the last year that the C-390 has not, both have excellent STOL capabilities for their size.

Both use a fully digital, fly-by-wire system. The C-390 does bring costs done by leveraging civilian systems where applicable, such as the Rockwell Collins Pro Line Fusion suite. Both to me are incredible aircraft.

Either makes a great replacement depending on what you want. That's really what it comes down to. Do you want a cheaper, C-130J sized platform with increased payload capacity and modern digital architecture? Than the C-390 is great for you.

Do you want a small, strategic capacity aircraft with long ranges and signifcant payload capacity? Than the A400 is right for you. Really there is room to argue that an airforce has reason for both aircraft, esepcially with a general lack of strategic lift options with the C-17 line dead.

Both are in a different class, offering different capabilities. They compete, yes, but they also are fundamentally trying to achieve different goals. I would be happy with either, but man, do I love the capacity a large fleet of A400 would bring....

Q3. Has there been any more discussion on LockMart or Prat offering a full overhaul facility in Mirabel?

No, because they ain't who's developing our maintinence network. L3Harris MAS in Mirabel was selected by the Canadian government in 2024 as the Strategic Partner to build and operate the heavy maintenance depot for the F-35.

Not that it's really a shock. L3 basically does it all for the RCAF. They're the ones with the nationwide network and supply chain available, also one of the few equipped to support the F-35 in general, so it was kind of an easy guess.

L3 is currently positioning the facility as a overflow shop for American F-35 should capacity be needed. In fact they're somewhat banking on it happening, which is why they're concerned about potential cuts ruining that chance.

There are 1500 direct and ~3500 indirect jobs tied to this facility. Any sort of cut severely risks that, not just for our own numbers but the potential loss of additional American business.

There is no talk about P&WC or Lockheed buikding out anymore maintinence or overhaul infrastructure here that I know of, not directly at least. There is no significant investments related to the F-35 that have been proposed by either as I last heard. If that changes I'll be the first to tell you!

Q4. In terms of the personal cap, how much is the CAF planning to try and grow over the next few years? How much is going to the Army based on the CAMO?

The official play calls for 120,000 Reg 100,000 PRes, and a 300,000 Augemented Reserve. That is the outlook for the 2040 timeline as last I heard of it.

The Augmented Reserve would be comprised of people with ready skills and trades that would be available for service in the event of mobilization. They would still go through BMQ, but would be generally released back to civilian life save for a week-long refresher course every year.

We reported that first. I wanna brag about that. We reported that all the way back in July. This plan is still a concept though and has not been approved or authorized. That is the goal though, what the CAF would like to get to.

Sadly I couldn't tell you the potential breakdown at this time. I'm sorry. That's something I don't have on hand, and while I could speculate, I don't think thats fair to you. I will try to get that info and put it to the newsletter.

Q5. After the CCGS Terry Fox completes it's current refit, how long does Coast Guard plan to keep her?

She’ll be retired Mid 2030s if I remember correctly around 2032-2033ish. She'll be done once Imnaryuaq is fully in service. Thats the current plan at least, though I could be off by a year or two on those dates.

Q6. Any rumours of a fleet to bridge airlift gap between the Twin Otter and Hercules? (aside from the common refrain to pivot 295 away from SAR due to performance)

No, not that I know. There is a desire to see where projects like nTACS land and such before we move on. The previous Twotter replacement was put on hold to explore other options, and since then there has been no movement on the file.

Current Twotters have some issues with the new electronics and cockpit for operating up innthe Arctic, or I guess I should day the cold to be exact. At the least there is a desire to ex0lore options like the MV-75, as we discussed a few weeks ago that could also perform that role, and potentially better than new Twotter could.

So as far as I know? There is no active attempt to acquire a replacement interim or otherwise.

Q7. Do you see a useful role for the Japanese ShinMaywa US-2 seaplane in RCAF or CCG service?

I thimk there could be some value, though not as much as many others. Seaplanes are cool, and can have a lot of utility for roles like SAR, especially for a country like Canada, however, while some believe that there is a majoe demand for such Seaplanes I dont necessarily see it.

Certainly there are use cases, but such aircraft I don't think would be more than a specialty platform for tasks like SAR or limited transport work. Keep in mind, platforms like the US-2 are fairly larger than other examples like the CL-515. Is that a better size for us?

Keep in mind that countries like Japan are island nations. They also expect to operate across the Indo-Pacific, so they have a much larger use case than us. Even the United States does. Us? There is likely some great things having an amphibious aircraft could so for us, but it will remain a niche role to me.

Q8. The new US Navy frigates lack a strong ASW capability by using containers. Is there a role/opportunity for the RCN to help fill that gap with the Rivers?

Sure. There's always room to do more, though I wouldn't necessarily say it's an existing gap. The Arleigh Burke still exist, and while they will no doubt be busy, there will still be enough present in most scenario to support the Continental ASW role.

Now, of course adding more River-class will bolster the Continents ASW capabilities. Despite their shifts compared to the original Type 26, the River still retain the baseline ASW capabilities which I believe will make them the best ASW combatants on earth when comissioned.

Between things like the ULTRA sensor suite, CODLOG propulsion system, and the extensive work put into reducing the acoustic signatures of the hull I truly believe the River-class will be the superior ASW platform in the Atlantic.

Now imagine fifteen of those in service... then add the potential Continental Defence Corvette which while not as good will still hopefully have an ASW capability in the form of a Hull-Mounted Sonar and Towed Array System if the navy gets what they want.

Theres also more minor capabilities like COBRA, which will give non-traditional platforms like the AOPS a limited ASW capability in our own containerized platform that can be swapped between vessels, potentially even CCG ones in the future.

Then there's USV, UUV, deployable sensor nodes... all of which were investigating. By no means are we going to be short ASW platforms! Thats a great thing though, not just for us but also for supporting allies like the United States who can then better allocate assets like the Burkes to more critical tasks.

I hesitate to call it a gap but it will be a major contribution to Continental Defence, and a massive support to the United States Navy no matter what happens. It will remain our key speciality that we can do best, but will no longer be limited by. Does that make sense?

Q9. How do KSS and TKMS subs compare for Special Operations use? Does RCN intend to keep KSS ballistic missiles if it’s selected or just cruise & ASM missiles?

As we said earlier the current status of the Hyunmoo IV-IV, as with all munitions, is up in the air. There is no confirmation on anything other than that they have been offered. If the navy wants them? They can have them but I have no idea if they would. Thats for the future to decide.

As for SOF thats a more complex area. Its something rarely talked about on the KSS-III and like never on the 212CD. We can infer a bit there from the previous Type 212A, but we don't have a lot of direct info.

The Type 212A Batch II features a four-person lock-out chamber housed directly inside the sail. We do know that the 212CD maintains a similar layout, but don't have exact deatils as to the capabilities and how they might have been improved. I imagine they also maintain hardpoints to mount additional pressure chambers as on the Type 212A

The KSS-III on the other hand feature, I believe, an Integrated Pressure Hull Trunk. It also maintains additional room to support SOF either with dedicated room or additional berthing space if needed. This allows the KSS-III to maintain a SOF presence without tapping into dedicated berthing space if needed.

Sadly this is an area I don't fully feel comfortable speaking on due to lack of info. I am working on getting info, but right now I only know the basics on this specific capability, so unfortunately I don't think I can do an accurate comparison.

I do plan to talk about this eventually, but right now it is extremely hard and I don't think I can do it proper justice.

---

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.