Let's Talk with Noah (02/16/26): Chinook, River-class, Munitions, France
Q&A
Happy Monday!
See I can still do this on Mondays. Sometimes…
This week is admittedly a fairly short one. Lots of direct questions, which I know many like but it also makes answers fairly short when it is X and Y instead of more broad questions. I apologize if this one feels shorter because of that, but it's also why im doing it today!
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 increase its air fleet with more Chinooks and transport planes beyond current plans? What would be a good number?
That is the active plan, lol. At least in the Chinook side of things. There is an existing plan to double the fleet tied to nTACS. Whether it goes through? I can't say, but it is in the books. There is recognition that tactical, heavy airlift is extremely important, especially for Canada.
The Chinook fleet is already in high demand anyway, so it makes sense that moving to a Divisional structure, with its own Combat Aviation Brigade, will necessitate a need for more in the future. There are few who would argue there.
As for transport aviation? I spoke about it two weeks ago in big detail, which you can find here at Question #2.
Q2. Is there discussion of additional airlift capacity? A400?
There are some preliminary discussions but nothing serious. There are talks for what sort of transport fleet Canada needs, especially with the lack of a C-17 replacement on the market. These are not a project, nor overly serious at this time. It's water cooler at this point.
As for the A400? See above.
Q3. I keep reading "up to 15 RCD". Is the government starting to back away from acquiring all 15 RCD?
No, that has always been the line. It has always been up to fifteen. There have been zero changes in the plans to acquire fifteen River-class Destroyers. The plan as it stands is to stick to that number.
However, at this time we have no contractual commitment to those fifteen. We have committed to the first three in Fraser, Saint-Laurent, and Mackenzie. The next batch will be for an additional six if the navy gets what they want. They have a desire to break from the 3/4 order cycle and commit to a significant batch II.
So it is still the plan, and the terminology has not changed officially. Up to fifteen is how it's been.
Q4. Could Magellan restart production of the CRV7 and update it to have features like the Hydra-based APKWS2 as a start for Canadian missile production?
Magellan could as far as I know; however, the actual desire seems non-existent. It’s completely possible to restart with enough time; the CRV-7 is a fairly low-tech munition.
As for doing something like APKWS? It was trialed in collaboration with Kongsberg with the CRV7-PG, but it never went anywhere and the concept itself is now firmly dead. It's possible to do such a conversion, but like the rocket itself, there's zero desire for it by Canada or others.
Magellan themselves have moved on to other things, and I don’t think have much personal desire to explore it again.
Q5. Is the Army plan for new tanks looking like a new Leopard 2 or will they look at all the offerings on the market?
From my understanding, it will be an open competition, so theoretically anyone could bid. I think it is highly likely we stick to the Leopard family. While the K2 is a fascinating platform, the Leo family will remain the NATO standard for at least the next decade+.
We are also aligned on initiatives like MARTE, which while not a deciding factor in the process, still present a roadmap to align further on heavy armor cooperation. So while I won't rule out K2 (and things can always change), I do think it's at a major disadvantage.
Q6. With the increased focus on the Arctic, does the CAF plan to increase its footprint in Resolute?
Yes, but I can't speak to the full plan myself. That falls under the future Northern Operational Support Nodes and Northern Basing Infrastructure Initiatives, both separate of the Northern Operational Support Hub initiative.
Sadly, the firm details at this time are extremely limited. They are planned, work is being done; however, I can't give concrete details.
Q7. Thoughts on augmented reserve, i think its a shit idea. Fix the recruitment process first, i know many that are interested, have applied and have not heard back.
I reserve judgment until there are firm details. It's best to remember that the Augmented Reserve is in the very early stages of conceptualization. Lots of rumors and leaks that come out will be ideas and pondering over firm plans.
As it exists? It obviously is not a full concept. I don't hate the idea myself; however, it requires significant investment and fundamental reform to how things are done to properly work. That means dispersed, likely regional, full-time training establishments able to support shuffling a large amount of people through BMQ.
As a Civil Corps idea with basic training? I think it's fine. It’s a concept replicated for centuries and across lots of different countries. Obviously, it should not come at the expense of general training capacity, but we're already far into discussions on what that looks like and how we can rapidly scale our training infrastructure.
I get the concern, mind you. We still have lots to fix on the recruitment side, but things are getting better, and numbers are reaching healthy points where we are gaining fairly steadily at this time. The good thing is that the Augment, at best, is still several years away from any sort of execution! We still have a few years to refine and build up.
Q8. Due to Cyclone serviceability, will the Protecteur actually operate 2 CH-148 when deployed?
Entirely depends on the state of the fleet. Of course, I don't think it will always be the case, but I do think we will see it. That's certainly part of the plan! Of course, that entirely depends on Cyclone availability. If it allows it? Sure! Although I'm sure many wouldn't be shocked if it didn't pan out due to... yeah...
Q9. Has a class or naming designation been picked for the future submarine fleet?
Not that I know. I know there have been active debates on what it could be; however, I am not privy to those conversations and I don't know what names might be high on the list.
Q10. Do the Hanwha CPSP or IFM bids include any missile IP transfer or on-shore munition production?
IFM had IP transfer built into the RFI. It was a requirement for manufacturers to provide IP access to their planned munition packages so the companies under the Munition Supply Program could produce those shells domestically.
Hanwha has not offered Hyunmoo production in Canada. It has never been seriously discussed, and has never been part of their bid. If it somehow is? It hasn't been spoken about publicly and hasn't gotten out there. The best we have is torpedoes.
Munition production is not a requirement in the RFP for CPSP, AFAIK, nor would we expect it to be.
Q11. What can we expect to come out of the new framework with France? Joining on 6th gen?
I have no insight into specifics of the roadmap’s plans at this time. I have asked. My initial expectation is that things like joint procurement, intelligence cooperation, joint training and exercise expansion, and further security collaboration are on the table.
To what extent? I can't say. Might include Sixth-Gen, but I doubt it. It’s far more likely to be foundational and broad as we've seen with similar agreements with South Korea and Indonesia last year. Those are two that can give a good basis of expectations.
Q12. What do you think of Ulstein's 96m X-BOW design for Norway's standardized vessel project. Could this ship or Ulstein's 57m version be useful for RCN?
I won't disregard anything, although neither is the vessel I look to Ulstein for, lol. I like the idea of using the SX121 as a base platform for a Subsea Support vessel, not too dissimilar to what the Brits have done. I think their proposals to the Norwegians are very cool and interesting; however, none quite fit anything on our docket, and overall we already have so many numerous vessels to fill their role between the CCG and RCN that I struggle to find a defined spot.
Too big for Orca replacement, doesn't fit CDC, and a lot of its roles in ISR and Patrol will be covered by future CCG additions. They seem like wonderful vessels. I just don't see where they slide into the fleet mix.
Q13. I've read about the Nordic Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) and similar systems. Does the CAF have something similar? Are they looking at procuring something?
Yes, we are looking to expand and modernize our stock of vehicle camouflage systems. I also wanna say that you're talking about Barracuda MCS, which not only have we ordered it in the past, but we also produce here. Saab has a partnership with Tulmar Safety Systems in Hawkesbury to deliver finished products to the North American market.
Plans are a bit fragmented and it's been very quiet, so I can’t say to its status, but it's in the plans.
Q14. Any rumours on STTC long term ISS contract award timeline?
Sadly not. It should have been awarded by now, if not very soon. However, it has been very quiet on that front and I have heard no updates on potential contract timelines. It's supposed to be soon though.
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.
Is there any discussion wrt nationalizing defence production, getting away from US subsidiaries. There’s a lot of chest thumping about exporting the LMC CMS-330, yet it is still export restricted by ITAR.