Let's Talk with Noah (02/10/26): P8, Leasing Sealift, Canadian-French Fighter?

Q&A

Happy Tuesday!

After a very news-filled day we finally have this weeks edition up. For those of you who missed out I'll likely do your questions later this weekend or something. Mainly because I do wanna answer a lot of them, though sadly time today has left us a bit short. Don't worry! I will get to the remainder.

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. Canada produces its own gun ammunition, but who in Canada builds AAMs, SSMs, SAMs or cruise/ballistic missiles and how fast? Isn't it critical to build our own?

I don't wanna be the one to disappoint you, but Canadian production of most munitions is limited and mostly restricted to fairly low-tech options such as 155mm shells, small arms munition, and limited amounts of munitions for platforms like the Leopards, Carl Gs, and others.

If you are looking for things like Air Defence munitions, Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, Anti-Ship missiles, and most in between, then you will sadly not find it here. These are munitions that, at this time, we just don't produce. There are limited examples. Folks like North Vector, for example, do have a CUAS missile system. These are not produced at scale, though.

Canada has never been a large-scale manufacturer of these sorts of high-end munitions. It is just something we have historically never done, not helped by an ebb and flow approach to defence spending and an archaic Munition Supply Program that has not kept up with times.

Certainly, production of these kinds of munitions are important in my mind. It is one of the chief reasons why I am supportive of the ongoing review of the Munition Supply Program, and why I am happy that accessing IP is tied directly into programs like IFM.

However, this is still limited in nature. I am not going to be the one to advocate for every munition to be made here; that is unrealistic of an expectation. However, I do believe that we could be doing a lot more. There are some discussions on what that might look like, and several procurements that are ongoing, such as CPSP, have raised the idea. Torpedoes are the big one, but Kongsberg has apparently also dangled NSM privately.

Those are higher-end munitions that you might have interest in that could be in the cards for the future; however, we will inherently be limited. We do not make the best market for export opportunities, our own Munition Supply program still needs to mature to the modern setting, and there are concerns with existing laws bogging down the process or making it financially unviable.

All factors that might need to be addressed; however, not impossible to work around even in the current system. The Australians have created a great system for attracting missile investment, leveraging collective procurement through a dedicated industry backed by significant capital investment.

They also started from basically nothing and have done well—not the same situation, but an example of possibilities.

Q2. Any idea if the Army has a preference for the MEDCAV acquisition? Seems to me a preference for US/German equipment, but the Hanwha industrial package is nice...

I don't think there's been time to develop a preference lol. MEDCAV is still young, and still trying to figure out exactly what they want out of a platform. Perhaps some have bias, sure, but there is no indication of any sort of preferences and I doubt there would be at this time.

Q3. Whats the latest out of Roshel - havent heard from them lately beyond some bad ICE press unfortunately.

They exist. Roshel has long periods of quiet. It's the nature of the business at times for manufacturers like Roshel to just be going through the motions with little news. I expect we will get something fun at CANSEC, and the company does have plans for new platforms (8x8, their own chassis) in their future.

So they're quiet, but that's alright. It's par for the course. Keep in mind they also recently secured an agreement with Swebor regarding domestic steel supply that is highly interesting from my perspective.

Q4. TAPV...any practical use beyond a future hard target in Wainwright?

There are some discussions on the future of the TAPV. Keep in mind that there is a collective desire to make them work and to leverage their availability to do... something? Just about every idea has been thrown out there, from CUAS to using it as the basis for a MLRS... yeah...

CUAS is an area where TAPV feels destined to be involved, same as a platform for unmanned systems. That is the most common idea you'll see pop up. There are other ideas to leverage them as VSHORAD systems that some like, and of course, TAPV will continue to be used in their traditional roles.

There are potential roles for them, so long as they're working, and there is again a desire to do such things—to find a place in the future that works effectively for them. Of course, I believe that they will eventually be overtaken and replaced by whatever LUV produces, likely Senators or similar, as we aim to streamline fleets.

However, in the meantime, I expect them to take the ad-hoc unmanned/CUAS role more. We will perhaps see more experimentation there, but that feels like the current evolutionary path in my head.

Q5. Any word on why the P-8 delivery was pushed back a year? Is that our doing, or is Boeing behind on deliveries?

I am not at liberty to speak to why the delay is there in specifics. However, I should note that it is a minor delay—like, very minor. It is not stretching the timeline significantly in any way, and while notable, it isn't all that serious and could be caused by any number of different things.

It's going from late 2026 to early 2027. I promise there isn't much to be concerned over!

Q6. Ryan McBeth recently analysed Canada's options with the fighter review, and said that mixing F-35s sensors with Gripen "bomb trucks" could work well. Thoughts?

I would never use the term "bomb truck" for a Gripen lol. Trying to make that a thing is bound to backfire. I get the concept, but that kind of task is where future CCA will largely dominate in for us. Gripen ain't a monster like the 15EX, which can do that role very well because it's an absolute unit.

That isn't a task for the Gripen to me, not in the sense that I see a bomb truck. I get the concept of leveraging the F-35s sensors and digital infrastructure to act as a node for cheaper, less complex aircraft. That's the basis of the Loyal Wingman concept to do roles like that at a lower-end like we would see something like Gripen do.

It's a task that it could do, but even cheaper, more disposable assets will likely take that role en masse. It's not a selling point to Gripen's strengths well. I wouldn't be the one to recommend running it as an idea.

Q7. I understand that the F-35 review is political and focuses on economic benefits. Has Lockheed Martin tried to enhance their offer?

They have; it's just that there is limited avenue that Lockheed has at its disposal to offer on the F-35 specifically. The F-35 is a multinational project with established workshares and a system in place to allow partners and their industry to compete for contracts. It is something that is partially out of Lockheed's hands.

They have thrown out other benefits; I can't speak to all of them. There has obviously been some tie-in with the existing Cyclone issues. There is also leverage when it comes to investments in Lockheed Canada and leveraging products like CMS330.

What they offered as part of the ongoing review is confidential. That is outside my purview. However, we have a general idea of what has been discussed. There are also rumors they offered something related to a possible award from CAE on the TF-50 with KAI, but that's just rumors.

They have been throwing benefits. They have been throwing incentives. However, if it comes to the F-35 itself? There isn't a whole lot they have at their disposal to play here. That is why a lot of narrative and effort is tied into existing partners like L3 MAS.

Q8. Can our 11 MQ-9B Reapers be upgraded with future ASW features for our northern capabilities? If so, is there a chance to expand our order? Thks for your work!

Sure. The great thing about the MQ-9B is how flexible of a platform it will be. Canada is already investing in getting some of the SeaGuardian-specific add-ons.

Ours will include the Leonardo Osprey radar as an example, and we can easily integrate the rest of the package, including the Sonobuoy Dispensing System if we had that desire. It's just adding the proper payloads.

However, I can't speak to if that is in the plans or not. Certainly, if the platform proves reliable, I think there is reasonable demand for more. While platforms like the MQ-9 get hate on their survivability in the modern battlespace, they are still highly capable surveillance platforms that can be rapidly dispersed and provide a companion to platforms like the P-8.

So I have high hopes! I pray they don't disappoint me. They still have their value and uses for us.

Q9. Is Canada considering purchasing gun based VSHORAD system like is all the rage in Europe right now?

Enduring Phase II is actively investigating what a future VSHORAD platform should include. Gun-based systems are certainly part of that discussion, and are likely to be included. We know that they form a critical VSHORAD/CUAS layer that non-kinetic and missile-based systems can't provide when it comes to scale, effectiveness, and affordability.

You need all three in this case to provide the comprehensive layers needed to survive in a drone-rich environment. They all complement each other, and you will likely see all working in tandem with each other. Likely on the same solution (Sgt. Stout is an example here).

Q10. As you said FCAS is burning before our eyes, you think French-Canadian partnership could be viable to replace or even a German-Canadian-Sweden partnership?

Maybe. I am not confident on a French-Canadian partnership being much more than a French project with a Canadian participation trophy. While there are certainly areas that Canada can provide, we will never be a focal part of such a development. We will likely be a provider of key components, and perhaps some work on the digital side of things.

However, we are not Sweden, Germany, or France with the industry to play a significant role in fighter development out the gate—certainly not with what we have now. We would need time to scale and build up that likely necessitates a platform to act as a learning bridge.

We do a lot of work on the F-35, and that industry forms a basis, but it is fragmented and not all of it will be able to effectively transition to contribute to a hypothetical Sixth-Gen project. We would be the junior, and that's okay. However, that role is better played with at least two other partners.

Q11. Has any information about the Defence of Canada Division leaked out to you yet? Seems like a pipedream if there is no kit or infrastructure plan in place.

Not much that I can disclose at this time for a multitude of reasons; however, I can say that there is work being done to better define the roles, scope, and equipment required by the Defence of Canada Division.

There are active discussions of, as an example I can give, what equipment is needed and how well that aligns to the Manoeuvre Division. A lot of the current framework is built around mobilization and ensuring there is a pipeline for the Manoeuvre Division available. That includes supporting the hypothetical Augmented Reserve.

Other core tasks include HADR, Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies, and Arctic A2/AD. Sadly, I cannot go into significant details at this time—hopefully soon. However, a lot is based off of supporting the mobilization pipeline.

Q12. Any chance the RCN acquires a laser directed energy weapon like UK’s DragonFire? Has the RCN given any thought to equipping the River class destroyers?

There have been discussions. There is a desire to take things slow, I find—wait and see, which is fine for such new technologies. There's nothing wrong with taking a step and seeing what happens. There is a desire; the navy is interested and studying the idea, but there are no specific plans or projects yet.

Q13. The CAF has mandated that leaders (MCpl and up) get BBB second language by 2035. Is that doable with so few seats at the language school?

I don't know if I can speak on that? Language studies is certainly not my field of expertise lol, though I can understand and have heard concerns with the recent language changes. I can't speak to feasibility myself; I don't know the capacity for language studies off the top of my head. That is a Charlotte question.

Q14. I’m seeing many articles about CMAR stating that the contract isn’t going to be signed until 2027. Why is there still a delay in this simple purchase?

You won't need to wait until 2027. Don't worry. You didn't hear from me about it, but I would expect you'll be hearing something soon, a.d certainly be seeing atuff by years end. The media will pick up on it eventually.

Q15. I’ve heard that AXON may be entering the CAF defense scene and having high-level meetings with leadership. Have you heard anything about this?

The Taser people? I have not heard anything of note. If I have, I don't remember. I'll look out, though, for you.

Q16. Could the RCN buy the necessary sealift ships and lease them to companies (Marine Atlantic) so they could operate them “until” we need the ship?

I discussed this idea before. It wouldn't really be a good use of Navy resources to do this. That's a significant legal and administrative burden on them to lease out such ships. If you wanted to do it, the best course is a P3 structured to ensure availability at request or a separate Crown Corporation to oversee such a thing.

Q17. Could a Canadianised Knud Rasmussen class be useful for RCN? Say a small number (4-6) built in Ontario while CDC is being developed. Your thoughts?

The Knud Rasmussen-class are cool vessels but would not be my Canadian choice. They don't have the greatest rep around, and I hesitate investing time and money into an older platform as opposed to taking the hit and waiting for a proper vessel.

Does the navy need another ice-strengthened OPV that will be less capable of operating in our Arctic than an AOPS? If you want another OPV, is a design like Knud really what we want? I don't think so. There are good utility designs on the market, both in the defence and commercial markets, that I feel make a better companion platform to the AOPS at that lower spectrum.

Q18. CNR published article on GLAMM Jan 6. Article references the polar security vessels (PMSVs) from CNR 2023. Any further updates or momentum on the PMSV concept?

Sadly, I don't know this concept well. I have heard the idea, but know little of the proposal as it related to RCN requirements. I'm sorry. If someone has info, I would love to hear it.

Q19. The end of the Fiscal year is approaching, any juicy tidbits?

You should wait until next week and see :)

---

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.