Let's Talk with Noah (02/03/26): P8, Merchant Marine? How Quickly Are Projects Moving?

Q&A

Happy Tuesday!

After a week-long absence due to extreme illness Let's Talk is back! With over fifty question though, and me currently trying to rush this on my way to Ottawa for a lot of cool meetings we are sadly once again onna reduced week. We will be back to our full Let's Talk again next week!

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. Should Canada explore a civilian logistics agency to move away from ad hoc contracts for global transport—similar to the UK’s RFA—maybe with an air component?

I have long argued that Canada should investigate a separate organization to handle things like Sealift and Cable vessels. You can find my breakdowns further there, but yes, it is an option and one I am very open to.

It does come with tradeoffs: both the financial burden of running such an organization and the administrative burden of running a potential Corporation (or similar) for such niche assets. It isn't impossible, mind you, just something that needs to be discussed (and we have).

Putting these kinds of niche assets into the Navy can be burdensome on an organization already struggling to crew and support both the existing fleet and, in the future, a massively upscaled fleet. The Navy should not operate cable vessels.

Ro/Ro maybe; but the better choice is to look at either a dedicated civilian organization or something along the lines of a Public-Private Partnership that can take that burden off of the CAF. An RFA-style format can work; it is just a matter of how we choose to go about it.

I like the P3+ model. I think it's the easiest and most realistic way we could acquire and ensure modern assets are under Canadian control. The exact way that would look? That’s certainly up for debate.

Q2. How many AEW&C aircraft will be acquired and will this number depend on the platform chosen?

Between six to eight is the plan. I have never heard of the platform being a determining factor in what number that lands on; typically, it would be cost that is the deciding factor there.

The likely number is six. That was the original number decided on as meeting the RCAF's requirements, though again, I have heard up to eight discussed in the past. When the RFI eventually drops, we'll get our firm number.

Q3. Any info on Canada and 6th gen fighters? Are there talks? Is Canada partnering with someone? GCAP? FCAS?

Discussions on a Sixth-Generation Fighter picked up last summer. We were the first to report it back in June/July? As far as I know, the majority of the discussions have been informal and related to GCAP.

While Canada continues to engage on the ongoing status of the F-35, I am of the belief that this exists separately to the review as a longer-term project of interest. I have spent the last several months trying to gather information about this, but sadly there isn't much to say.

There have been no technical discussions as they relate to workshare, cost, or timelines. All discussions seem to be in the very early stages, with GCAP being seen as the most likely option on the table right now.

However, with discussions with Saab ramping up, there is also the possibility that Sixth-Generation discussions are going on there. I see it as very likely.

Of course, GCAP itself is fairly ambitious. The Japanese need to have a replacement for the F-2 by 2035 means that the project is on a tight deadline to deliver. Speaking of the Japanese, they remain the primary obstacle to the expansion of GCAP.

Japan has been hesitant to allow additional partners due to the potential loss of workshare—a very tense part of the GCAP Initiative. With Canada looking to maximize economic benefit, a hardlined Japan might present an issue, if not an outright barrier, in an attempt to protect its fragile aerospace industry.

That does not preclude us from buying, mind you; however, true partnership remains a far and distant prospect. FCAS, in the meanwhile, is currently burning before our eyes as many Euro-projects do. That might be to Canada's benefit if Germany decides to deviate to a potential Swedish partnership, though that is purely hypothetical and not based on ongoing discussions.

Q4. What do you think of Saab's offer? 72 jets, 6 global, 12k jobs. It is enticing. A squadron of F-35 plus this. Take a risk? Is a mixed fleet the way?

You can find my opinions on the matter here and here. They have not changed. I will say that I never trust any numbers a defence company gives when it relates to jobs, and the proposal given to the Feds is not public enough for me to endorse.

When Saab shares a detailed proposal—with commitments, breakdowns, and proper timelines—then I will judge it for what it is. There is a lot missing; there are a lot of questions I still have. I have tried to reach out, to no response, on multiple occasions.

At this time, I do not want to get fully into the economics and such, especially because it is not fair for me to assess when the whole picture is not available. Right now, we have vague promises and some guessing; not enough to break anything down on my end.

I will reiterate that I do like the Gripen. I think Sweden deserves commendation for what they have been able to do; however, if we are judging this from an industrial and economic standpoint, there is a lot that still needs to be answered.

The best thing Saab can do, IMO, is to be more public with their offering and present themselves in a forward way. By being distant and quiet to the public, it makes it hard for people like me to fairly assess what this means for Canada.

What does assembly look like? What IP is on the table? How much of the original proposal is on the table? What industry partners have you reached out to? What is the proper breakdown of timelines?

All things I want to know, and sadly we don't. So until then, I can't give a fair judgement to the standard that you all should demand of me, and that I try to hold myself to.

Q5. Since the inception of the AOPS the world has changed. I have heard rumblings of maybe some defensive/offensive upgrades. Anything grey floating is a target.

There have been some discussions on what could be done to up-arm the AOPS if needed; however, they will never be up to the standard that many people would like them to be. At the end of the day, they are patrol vessels. They are not meant to be proper combatants, and you are right—they are still targets.

There are limits, however. You can't just add something like a Mk.31 to the AOPS and call it a day. You would also need to discuss upgrades to her sensor suite and CMS. Those, in turn, mean having to discuss things like cooling and power management.

Remember SWaP-C! Size, Weight, Power, Cost. Adding new weapons systems means finding space. It means finding the power necessary not just for the system itself but all the supporting equipment with it. It means potentially things like additional consoles, server racks, etc., that all eat up into the platform's available margins.

It is a serious conversation with numerous downward effects to up-arm a vessel that is, at the end of the day, a commercial-standard patrol vessel that does that job extremely well. Perhaps containerized systems and smaller, less demanding systems coming onto the market can help rectify some of these issues. Think less RAM and more dedicated CUAS systems that utilize micro-interceptors and autonomous platforms.

Think small, uncrewed systems that could perform a number of defensive or supportive roles, doing things like Electronic Support or ISR. Those could certainly be something the AOPS could do utilizing containerized systems.

That could be possible; however, if you're thinking things like NSM, RAM, etc.? I don't think it will come to pass.

Q6. Considering Norway just ordered 2 additional SAR AW101s, is there any interest or possibility of adding to the Cormorant fleet?

Good news! Canada is currently undertaking an expansion of the Cormorant fleet. As part of the Cormorant Mid-Life Upgrade, Canada is also acquiring three additional AW101s to bring the total fleet to sixteen airframes. While the first three will be done in Yeovil, IMP out of Nova Scotia will be handling final assembly for the majority of the fleet.

The Cormorant fleet is actually really cool in this regard, as the airframes themselves will be brand new, though utilizing a lot of existing components from the current fleet.

It's why some of you might hear me use the term "renewal" over "upgrade," as upgrade gives a somewhat false impression of just how much work IMP is doing here. It is quite spectacular—the work they are doing transitioning into someone who could undertake assembly of a platform like the AW101.

Q7. Any updates on the new P-8 acquisition and will we exercise the option for the additional 2 aircraft?

The first P-8 was slightly pushed back to early next year. Other than that, it is progressing well. People are getting familiarized with the platform; we're building out infrastructure. We should see a munitions package sometime this year that includes some goodies for the P-8. That will be nice.

As for the option for two more? Maybe. There was some concern with having crews available in that scenario that made some hesitant; however, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility—not at all. However, it is more a down-the-line thing than an immediate one.

Q8. The H model C-130s being replaced performing SAR—will they be retired or moved to transport duties?

They will be retired. Simple as that.

Q9. Is the RCN considering any smaller unmanned or optionally manned vessels?

There are discussions across a wide range of possibilities, both smaller USV and up to LUSV-sized companions. There is no dedicated project specifically for USV that I know about; however, there have been active tests of the concept and work is being done to better define what the fleet mix looks like and what kind of platforms we want to utilize.

A lot has been done already utilizing the Hammerhead target systems as a baseline. This includes doing tasks such as deploying sonobuoys (something very important when your maritime helicopter doesn't work) and as improvised munitions. Both of which serve as a proof of concept for what can be done.

For now? Discussions remain in the early stages. We will have to see how they progress, but there is significant interest.

Q10. Is the SkyHunter system only capable of intercepting targets on a ballistic trajectory? Or can it also intercept maneuvering targets?

No, SkyHunter is not limited to intercepting targets on a ballistic trajectory. While it (and Iron Dome itself) are well-known for the ability to destroy threats like rockets, artillery, and mortars, it is fully capable of engaging and destroying maneuvering aerodynamic targets.

Tamir, SkyHunter's primary interceptor, is equipped with electro-optical sensors and steering fins that allow it to make high-g maneuvers in flight. This maneuverability enables it to track and intercept unpredictable, non-ballistic threats such as cruise missiles and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).

This capability against maneuvering targets is a major reason why the Marine Corps selected SkyHunter for its Medium Range Intercept Capability (MRIC) program, and also why it interests us so greatly.

Q11. Are there any plans for the CAF to work with Canadian companies to develop domestic production of attack drones and/or counter-drone systems?

There is currently a CAF-wide initiative regarding CUAS in the works. The new Canadian Joint Forces Command (CJFC) will be championing this effort to rapidly acquire CUAS systems for the CAF as a whole. Details are still slim. It is still in the early stages of work for what comes of it; however, domestic solutions seem to be a top priority.

As for Attack Drones? There are a few avenues to look at, the primary one being the Minerva Initiative. I did a big piece on it back a few months ago. It is now the primary Unmanned Systems Initiative for the Canadian Army, covering UAS, UGV, and even USV. You can also check out some of the people from the IDEaS Drone Surge contest, which, while not attack-focused, is another very important UAS initiative that's ongoing.

Q12. Do you foresee the already quickened projects due to the new budget becoming even faster due to recent events?

Take it from me: Almost everything is moving faster. It is actually insane to see how many things have been pushed up or have been rushed through now that funding is available.

Look at ESCP-P last month. That was pushed ahead literal YEARS from where it was supposed to be. The Airlift Capability Project was pushed ahead also by a significant timeline. ALAV, MEDCAV, HDFM, DAME... Just to name a few projects, all are either moving ahead at significant speed or have seen their timelines shortened.

It's hard for me to even say to what scale this is without coming off dramatic. Right now, the limit isn't even money anymore; it's stuff like people able to be assigned to projects and the fact most projects are still working with the existing rules and administration that has hampered us for decades. Those both take time to fix, and in spite of that, projects continue to move ahead at an insane pace.

Q13. If we choose KSS-III, should we stick with VLS for future needs? Do you think we'll acquire SLBMS, and are you against it? Personally, I am for it.

If we choose the KSS-III specifically, then I am all for keeping around the VLS. It provides some future-proofing even if current munitions are not what I would like to see. I have talked about this concept a lot, but it bears repeating: It isn't the munitions here that are valuable, but the potential the VLS has for the future. A VLS is space.

It is a capability the torpedo tube can't provide. It is a free canvas with which we can work as we desire. It provides another option for munitions, autonomous systems, etc., that we wouldn't have without it.

As for the Hyunmoo IV-4? I find it extremely, very niche. A 1-ton Bunker Busting Ballistic Missile is really cool, don't get me wrong, but it is entirely developed with the South Korean mindset and needs in consideration. For us, it would be a very niche system; however, that doesn't make it bad. Deterrence is a strange, multifaceted complexity that such a missile can play a role in. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is built for a specific scenario in mind.

Maybe scale down the warhead and try to get more range out of it, and then we're talking something else.

Q14. Have you ever heard of Icarus Aerospace? They have some unique aircraft and have been in the drone game for a while. They have some neat designs.

I like Icarus. They get pushed around a lot, but I like cool, wacky concepts. Their entire line is based off their Tactical Air Vehicle, a light jet that reminds me a lot of an upscaled Paramount Mwari. They have an armed and unmanned concept, though I stress, as far as I know, a functional example has never been shown off.

However, I will always give some love to companies that try to do unique and cool things. Do I believe all they say? No. Does it have a role in the CAF? Ehhhhh. Maybe if it was 2008. The unmanned approach might be the best chance they have at getting something. Canadian UAS concepts to that scale are very limited and hard to come by; however, they're also not an established player in this field, which makes me skeptical.

Maybe I should reach out to them and ask some questions before I judge too harshly.

Q15. Do we know if RCN has any plans for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) systems like those offered by Cellula Robotics in BC?

Yes, they do! I also wrote about it a few months ago, so go check it out!

Q16. Do you think either the Koreans or the Germans try to bundle tank replacement or MEDCAV with the sub deal or are the projects too far out to try?

The Koreans have done this since the start. They've created whole bundle packages that you can read about here; however, here's the chart for you to get a decent look at.

I know for a fact they're actively dangling this idea of a local production facility similar to the Hanwha Armoured Vehicle Centre of Excellence (H-ACE) in Geelong, Australia, to Fuhr while he's there.

Germans? I have yet to hear it, but don't count it out.

Q17. I heard a naval historian refer to unmanned vessels being tested as "modern sloops of war". What are your thoughts on referring to these new vessels as sloops?

I think it's a fascinating linguistic and historical callback. I for one like saying "sloop," so if I get a chance to use it, I will. The Brits have also settled on the term. I do think a distinction is in order. LUSV and some MUSV could certainly take the historic name for their own, and I think roll with it. Sloop is a much nicer term than LUSV.

Below that? No. LUSV can certainly fit that historic distinction in my mind: these unclassed, mass-produced vessels meant to sit below the general purview of traditional combatants. It sits outside the distinction of Patrol Boats and Corvettes. I like it myself. It gives a cherished, dedicated classification to the LUSV market. It also brings back a term I like, so I win anyways.

Q18. Could you go into the Augmented Reserve a bit more? How does recruitment look for that? And what benefits would it give to members?

Sadly, we don't have many details. The team set up to formulate what this would look like is only about eight months old. They have quite literally only begun to contemplate the details of how this would look and how we would execute it.

There sadly isn't much to go into that has not already been discussed at length elsewhere here. It's still far too early to say what this looks like when all is said and done.

Q19. Other than NATO and other allies, what countries would you like to see Canada have a partnership with—military, economy, political?

I think there is a lot of room in the Indo-Pacific to do more with partners. We've already seen some work done on the Indonesia and Philippines files; however, I think there is loads of potential for cooperation with partners like Vietnam, Malaysia, and the various island nations where Canada can continue to step up and leverage our advantages in fields like AI, Energy, and Biomedicine to really come into our own.

Defence cooperation through expanded exercises, Joint Patrol opportunities, and leveraging programs like the Dark Vessel Detection Program are also areas where Canada can do exceptionally well, and can really go a long way in establishing ourselves as a Pacific player.

While Canada is a Pacific nation, we are still a general outsider to the wider Indo-Pacific. We have to understand that we are coming to partners like Vietnam and Malaysia as a distant, new player to a very volatile and distinct region.

We have to put the effort in to prove ourselves and to show we have good, collaborative intentions. The upcoming ASEAN FTA, God willing, will help in that regard by opening up significant cross-cultural and trade opportunities between Canada and our Pacific friends.

---

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.