Let's Talk with Noah (02/24/26): Everyone Loves nTACS, CDC, Bombardier, DIS Fallout

Q&A

Happy Tuesday!

Nothing is better than a Tuesday Q&A after doing so well to get it done last Monday. Granted, I didn't really have much last week! It was a very short newsletter admittedly.

This week we get back to more of our usual length! You guys really like nTACS now don't you? Not that I'm complaining but I like seeing how everyone shifts focus from time to time.

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. Are there any updates on Blackhawk procurement or the potential Cyclone replacement?

We should be hearing things soon. The UH-60M is still very much in the books as of last week. It is the only platform that meets what CANSOFCOM wants in the very harsh timeline they want them. Of course, I can't speak to exacts there, but it was a case of the sole platform that matched, for better or worse.

The Cyclone offer is still on the table. No one has acted on it, and may not for that matter. It isn't an official plan to ditch the Cyclones. Certainly many would, but you shouldn't see it as a done deal. Look to it as an active offer on the table if we want it.

So, both are decisions currently sitting on someone's desk. It is up to the Federals to execute on them. The UH-60M is practically a done deal for the most part; the Cyclone not as much, but still a popular option.

Q2. How about an article comparing the pros & cons of naval guns for the River class, focusing on weight savings from moving to a 76mm or 57mm gun to gain more VLS?

In the plans! It's just not on the top of my priority list at this time. There is a healthy discussion around what kind of main gun is needed and the expectations we have of them. While we have fallen into a certain category for the first three, there isn't a guarantee that we'll do the same for the next batches.

I think it’s an interesting topic, so it's certainly something I want to explore eventually!

Q3. Are the Blackhawks at risk of being canceled by the government due to ongoing trade tensions?

As of now, no, they aren't. While there are ongoing issues, there hasn't been a major shift on our side to go against American. That might change with the DIS—no one quite knows its ramifications overall—but as of now, things are sticking.

Some people are drawing up alternative plans in case the DIS takes a heavy-handed approach to executing its goals. I think, honestly, most people are being too dismissive and cautious with it. That will bite some.

However, for now, nothing on the Hawk front has changed.

Q4. Any benefit to pursuing local production of the UH-1Y & AH-1Z combo for nTACS? It's the 80% solution capability-wise but with simpler logistics and training.

We want to move away from the Huey family to something a little bigger and more capable. No hate, but the Y and Z are sort of a dead end for us. Bell doesn't really care much for them; they still get orders, but there's only so much that can be done with them.

Bell certainly isn't going to be investing much more in the platforms, and there are more common, much more capable options on the market that fit us. Bell would certainly rather see the MV-75 sold to us. They aren't throwing anything else out.

I get the logic, but I don't think it would be in the cards realistically. The UH-1 is an old platform with a legacy heritage to its design. Better is on the market, and the company doesn't seem all that keen to offer. With all that in mind? I just don't see it.

Q5. Any news regarding the additional order of more LAV 6s/ACSVs that you reported a few months ago?

Sadly, not. They're on the table. At least the 190 additional ACSV was approved by cabinet; perhaps the other 140 ALAV as well in that timeframe. That I cannot say. It’s been approved; it's ready to go. We just need to see the orders actually committed.

The plan is still to eventually renew the LAV fleet over the next decade or so. That will be for upwards of 1,100 ALAV in that timeframe. After that will be an ACSV renewal and then an eventual replacement.

As of now, the decision is just waiting for that final approval. The Federal government wants to move to a system of continuous production and sustainment of the fleet. It provides GDLS-C with long-term, committed work over the next decade or so. Everyone wants it, and I expect we'll see it announced officially sooner rather than later.

Q6. Outside of the anticipated order for ~6-8 early warning aircraft, what are other ways Bombardier could contribute to the DIS/Canadian defence ramp?

I mean, they now also have the Airlift Capability Project - Multi-role Flight Service (ACP-MFS) contract now, so that in itself is fairly significant. If I am Bombardier—and this is just me—I am looking to try and position the Global as a complementary platform that can provide several important but niche capabilities.

That means looking at things like Pegasus and HADES and trying to sell the Global as an ISR platform. That means trying to look at the work being done with the Koreans on an Electronic Warfare aircraft and trying to replicate that for a wider, Canadian desire.

That can mean platforms like the E-11, which is a very niche capability in itself. These are very important capabilities to have, but very niche. They can be done by other platforms, yes, but perhaps not to as dedicated an extent as the Global.

You sell the Global on its availability and modularity. You have a lot of work already done by others in figuring out how to tailor the platform to specific niches. The key is to find said niches. Could a Battlefield Communication platform have value in the Arctic? Perhaps. However, I feel it is up to Bombardier to really sell it.

I think having a high-end ISR platform is good. I think having an EW aircraft is also a very nice capability to have, and the Global provides a domestic platform that can do that quickly if we leverage the work already done by others. Could its role be filled with other platforms? Sure. But the Global provides a large, modular platform off of which we can base a lot.

They just need to find the proper niches to sell here.

Q7. Topshee said he would love it if Irving speeds up construction of the RCD. What kind of incentive would Irving need to invest to do this? More flights after 15?

I don't think it's necessarily more incentive. Irving is already doing a lot of work. At their peak, they'll have capacity to work on six Rivers at various stages of construction. Keep in mind also that the Halifax waterfront is limited in room for further expansion.

You gotta ask if it is a space/money issue or another bottleneck. People often focus on the physical without trying to get at the root. I don't think it's a space or size issue with Irving—or really any of the yards once they're all done their modernizations.

Supply chains are an issue; long-lead items will remain an issue. Certainly, I'm sure Irving would like to see a six-ship batch next. Is there a skill issue? Could there be room to benefit in wider training partnerships and best practices sharing?

A lot of people focus on the money and infrastructure. That is the go-to in many of these cases. The fact is that building a class of modern destroyers is time-consuming and expensive. Keep in mind also that the River-class, as part of the NSS, is meant to serve as an economic tool. No matter what, we will shift timelines in accordance to ensure work is available without significant gaps.

While there is for sure politicking going on, I'm always hesitant to dismissively wave it as the primary and dominating factor in many of these. There are loads of bottlenecks and hampers to the River-class that fall on Irving, the Feds, and outside of them.

Certainly, I'm sure the Navy would not like Irving to do CDC, because that's capacity to them that could go to the River-class. They could. I think Irving has the space to do it if they wanted, but the messaging I get out of this when the Vice-Admiral talks is that it's not about some sort of holdup, but about allocation of available resources.

It's a complex question, and the answers to "how" are equally as complex. I don't feel it's a "what is Irving wanting to stop holding up" kind of question. I think it's a number of competing factors, bottlenecks, and desires that are conflictive of each other.

Q8. With the CDC possibly having 8 or 16 VLS, what length is the RCN looking at, or is that even decided yet?

I have not heard any discussion on length. Zero. I have heard the yes/no on VLS, lol. If it helps, almost all models I have seen presented by industry have been with Strike-length mentioned (if mentioned at all).

Take of that what you will.

Q9. Cadet funding has declined over the years (camps, uniforms, scholarships). Is DND planning to increase investment, given its value as a recruiting pipeline?

I was a scouts kid, lol. I do get what you're saying. The Cadets are a fine organization with a lot to provide, both as a tool for recruitment and as a way to support youth. I have not personally heard much on them in terms of specific dollars, sadly. There is a desire to increase the Cadets, especially in rural, remote areas.

The government has set a goal to boost the Cadets' total among the youth population to at least 2% by this year or next, if I’m not mistaken? There is a desire to leverage the Cadets more and to expand their reach.

How that translates funding-wise? I don't know, sadly, off the top of my head.

Q10. Can we expect to see any Canadian companies involved in the construction of the two new US Coast Guard icebreaker programs?

I imagine so. One of the things Canada’s Icebreaker renewal has already started to help do is build up the initial supply chain. Those existing supply chains will be leveraged to build upon future American Icebreakers as they're both what is available and are actively delivering already.

How extensive will this be? I don't think we can say at this time. However, it is best to remember that the Americans are not just buying into designs, but into the overarching Icebreaker network that we and Finland have been building the last few years. Canadian companies who are already doing that work and have that experience will be the first called upon, especially given how tight the American timelines currently are.

That is what the ICE Pact aims to do: leveraging the strengths each partner has (in Canada’s case, our existing supply chain is one of the big benefits we can offer) to speed up construction, drive down costs, and build a stable, Western icebreaker industrial capability.

You might not see a lot of flash, so to say, but in the background, there will be Canadian companies involved, and Canadian suppliers will benefit over the lifetime.

Q11. Any juicy leaks on CMC? I've heard rumors of going full frigate size, especially with new defence increases. WILD. Thoughts?

You can find the latest gossip here. It is the most accurate source I have still. Not really much has changed from it, unless you wanna talk about the Navy wanting to get some sort of documents out this year regarding CDC. That could be an RFI, ITQ, etc. They want to move fast on CDC if the Federal Government permits them.

Q12. Topshee hinted at a Canadian Ghost Shark-style AUV program. What might it look like, and could Canada buy Anduril AUVs given Kraken would supply the batteries?

Canada has suppliers in this field. Certainly, we could buy abroad, but I see little reason. Canada has always been at the forefront of Autonomous Underwater Systems. We are the innovators. You can see my longer piece about them more here.

Companies like Cellula are already working on similar products to Ghost Shark as we speak. In Cellula’s case, they are an active partner with DRDC on trialing the concept of XLUUV operating in the Arctic. They certainly could use more backing, as the Aussies have done with Anduril.

I think they're already doing great stuff in the UK with Herne, for example, and that's without large financial backing in the hundreds of millions. Imagine what they could do with serious funding and access to resources?

I think starting with guys like Cellula and ISE is the way to go if you wanna dive into what Canadians in this space can do. They're what we're likely to see from the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System project.

Q13. Are we going a European or American route for nTACS? For attack, is Apache best, and for CH-146 replacement, should we consider MV-75, H-175M, or another option?

It's funny you post this because I just talked about the options and such in the newsletter, lol. Here is a repost for you since I already went into it there:

"Another newsletter means another nTACS update. Of course, I was kinda happy to report on the Fort Erie stuff, but sadly Airbus decided to mention it to local media before today. I guess I can't be upset. Their company, their news and all.

But yes, Airbus is preparing for a major expansion in Canada if they win anything out of nTACS. That includes final assembly at the plant in Fort Erie (at minimum) as well as additional investments in areas such as sustainable fuel and components manufacturing. They've already engaged in B.C., Alberta, and Quebec trying to build up a proper team it seems.

Leonardo has also been shopping around themselves. I guess everyone understands that domestic manufacturing is likely to be a major demand of nTACS, at least on the Federal side. Leonardo already maintains a relationship with IMP, so I expect they'll double down there.

The plan is still to acquire a fleet of Blackhawks (UH-60M apparently) for CANSOFCOM. That hasn't changed. I hate that it's lumped into nTACS, but it is. Makes the discussion confusing for some. Lockheed is still dangling the UH-60 for nTACS proper. Airbus is throwing out the H-175M and Leonardo the AW149, at least for now.

Bell is obviously dangling the MV-75. There is talk of producing in Canada and I have heard that is the plan, but they got a lot to prove with it…

As for the fabled Attack Helicopter, the options are really only the AH-64 and AW-249. Those are the two that are really left. We don't exactly have a glutton of options in this category. Tiger is dead, Viper is basically dead, and we want a proper ‘Attack Helicopter.’

Anywho, that is my little nTACS update. We should be seeing an RFI soon, hopefully in the next few weeks. That should give us some more clarity on what exactly is desired."

Q14. Is the CRV7, like the APKWS2, not a low-cost precision munition for counter-drone warfare? Why isn’t there interest in this domestic opportunity?

APKWS has a large, active user base with significant production. Keep in mind the rocket game before a few years ago was... limited... here. There just wasn't much demand for them, and so the production line trickled out. Such is the case of things, sadly.

Now, restarting production and investing in development is an expensive proposal—one with limited export potential compared to American and European options. Certainly, having a domestic option is nice, but you gotta accept the costs and limits, so to speak.

Time and money are killers.

Q15. I’m very happy to see the rapid progress on the speed of procurement; however, ISS contracts seem to be lagging behind. Are there any plans to change this?

Yes. There are active discussions on what ISS looks like and how we can better set ourselves for success. There is acknowledgment that the system we have been using doesn't produce the results we want in the timeframes we want.

Those are ongoing discussions related to what ISS is and where responsibility lies between supplier and government. Several ISS, such as with the STTC, are admittedly behind, but it is noticed. I can't say what the plans will end up being; they're still in early discussions. However, there is a mandate for change and speeding up timelines across the board. Same goes for building infrastructure.

Q16. Any thoughts on how Canada could be involved in the US Golden Dome? Would it be through offering Telesat/MDA’s Lightspeed constellation?

That’s one way to participate. Golden Dome is a very far-reaching initiative. Almost any company in many industries—from space and software to logistics and construction—could easily find a pathway to be involved in Golden Dome.

Canadian companies have lots to offer. Golden Dome has a heavy space-based component that will tackle a lot of the conversation, so you'll see companies like MDA and Telesat, yeah, but there are others like Kepler, C-Core, ThothX, etc., who all have technology and constellations that could be leveraged as part of something like Golden Dome.

Companies like D-TA are another that bring Canadian-made OTHR technology to the table. Magellan is obviously one; subsidiaries like Lockheed Martin Canada, Raytheon Canada, Kongsberg Geospatial, and GDMS-C are also likely to play supporting roles to their parents' endeavors.

Anytime you have a large-scale, foundational initiative on the table, you can expect almost everyone to have the potential to play a part. There is loads of potential work available, and of course, a lot will be American by nature. Perhaps that is why it's better not to follow in Golden Dome but work on ways we can align and support each other in our respective IAMD initiatives.

Q17. Any thoughts on how fast the CAF could ramp up recruitment (Carney already said recruitment up 13% since June) as some of the reported targets seem aspirational?

I don't think it's as aspirational as many think. We've done very well on all accounts to get initial people in the door over the last few years. The big bottleneck remains having the training infrastructure in place to move people through.

That includes BMQ, but also specialized trade training as well. That includes being able to continue to shrink timelines for getting people in the door. Each branch has its own challenges and solutions to this. The Navy aims to modernize the number of existing trades and leverage existing and future reserves to decentralize the training pipeline. They also aim to leverage existing educational capacity outside the CAF to help get things moving.

The Army is similarly looking at a more decentralized model of getting people through training. We have people who want to serve—lots of them. We keep breaking records year on year. There is still, though, a significant challenge in getting people through. That is where the current bottleneck primarily is.

It'll require hard looks at how the CAF does training and how we can get people in the door quicker. It'll mean looking at trades, looking at how contracts are set, and looking at outside tools that can be leveraged.

Q18. The DIS includes funding a C$105m drone-innovation hub – do you see Volatus’ MALE drone being a potential beneficiary?

Potentially? Volatus has done very well to try and position themselves as the people to go to for things like testing and integration. They've also been significantly involved in trying to build out an end-to-end supply chain for themselves.

I can't speak to their MALE plans because they haven't really said much on them. It’s a concept they have—great—but MALE UAS are not an easy nor cheap endeavor. I wish them the best, obviously, and I have praised them before. I’ll wait until I see more of it. Only then can I say if they'll benefit.

It takes nothing to have plans. It takes a lot to show that plan in action. I await that action.

Q19. The government plans to designate defence private-sector “strategic partners/champions” -- how many companies do you believe they will select?

This is the golden question many are asking after last week, lol. No one quite knows the plans for how Strategic Partners and National Champions will work, nor how extensive it will be. Many people will be clawing and fighting to justify their value and why they need to be selected; however, we just don't know.

I believe they'll be fairly loose, which is my worry. I hope they do not use this as a chance to force certain winners. A Strategic Partner should be someone who provides a unique capability that can't easily be replicated by others in industry at a domestic level.

MDA and Telesat? Yeah, I can see the justification there. Same with shipyards. Same with the likes of CAE, who hold significant value and reach. You can reasonably justify them from a domestic standpoint. Even Bombardier, I could see as a Strategic Partner.

Then there are others where perhaps it isn't entirely justified. They'll be mad at me, but GDLS-C, as an example, shouldn't be a Strategic Partner focused on Armoured Vehicles as justification for awarding them things like IFM and MEDCAV, where viable alternatives exist and domestic investment can still be secured.

Perhaps they go very specific. Maybe in this case GDLS-C is a strategic partner, but not so extensive as to dominate entire categories. A lot of it comes down to how that policy is executed and how extensive a support the Federal Government provides.

I hope it is selective, specific, and harsh. I don't like being self-restrictive to prop up certain companies when other viable options exist. It shouldn't be a general winners' club for the establishment. That's about the worst they can do.

Q20. Do u think CANSOFCOM/Canadian intelligence along with American/European counterparts are already deployed in Iran? Covert ops?

Nice try, CSIS. You ain't catching me that easily.

Q21. Are there plans to donate the Auroras to an ally when we receive the P-8s, or will they be scrapped?

No. They're done once the CP-8A come online.

Q22. How hard would it be to reverse engineer weapon systems we buy from foreign countries? I know it's quite common. Would there be fallback?

Yes. People don't like their IP stolen, and certainly don't like it copied. IP is very valuable, and stealing it from friends is not exactly looked upon favorably. Industry especially won't be thrilled if someone like DRDC started trying to copy designs to sell back on the market.

People like their stuff, and they like it to not be copied. So, I imagine in this case there would be at least a bit of controversy and strongly worded letters.

Q23. This might be personal, but who are your biggest influences? Who is your mentor? I'm insanely curious to know where you get your style from.

My style, as you say, comes from a bunch of different places. My style of how I do TNSR is based off Steve Daly and the work that the Canadian-American Strategic Review did. That's also where we get our name from as a tribute. It is a shame Steve is retired from writing now; he would have been excellent.

The Newsletter is based off the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, at least loosely. The similarities have waned over the last year, and I take no writing cues from Dave Meltzer myself; however, it was an early inspiration for the concept.

My primary mentor in life, and my rock (outside my lovely wife), is Dieter Macpherson of Aurora Cannabis and Canadian Space Mining Corporation fame. He has been with me from the start, has guided every major choice I have made, and seen me through my worst.

He has seen me through every low, taken every bit of angst and youthful anger I have thrown at him, and carried me through all the times I tried to give up.

He is the one who set me up, encouraged me, listened to me, and helped foster my interest in defence as I was getting back into it. He knew me before almost everyone else in this space—before I even spoke on defence—and he has been my biggest cheerleader since.

He is who I go to for advice. He is who I go to when I’m struggling, and he is who I go to when I need someone to tell me off. He is the one I go to before making any major decision. He is a father to me, and I love him dearly. If anyone helped me in building TNSR, it is him, because without him? I wouldn't have taken the leap of faith.

---

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.