Let's Talk with Noah (03/02/26): Coastal Defence, Armoured Vehicle Roundup, Infrastructure Roundup, Golden Dome, LRSS

Q&A

Happy Monday!

It's a very busy day today, so I'm gonna keep this one short. It's another Monday newsletter because I had some time yesterday! This week we got a lot of followup, but also a lot of great roundups for those of you who want to be in the know with things going on. That includes a rare Infrastructure roundup!

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. Is there any possibility that the RCN would buy a ship design outright, like the future corvette, and then have multiple shipyards build the same design?

I mean, sure. They could if they wanted. I don't think they will. If the Navy wanted to mandate multiple yards to build the Corvette, they have the tools in the toolbelt and through the NSS to mandate it without having to outright purchase a design.

That actually isn't even difficult to really do from a contracting standpoint. It wouldn't even be the first example we've seen, nor the most extreme (I would argue Helsinki is a more extreme example than multiple yards working on CDC) that we've seen.

The Navy can do as much as they want here, within legal and contractual limits. I don't think the Navy will outright purchase a design and then work on it themselves (assuming that's what you mean); we have several mature design offices (Robert Allen, Vard, Genoa, Serco) who can do that kind of work. We're out of the in-house design game.

Q2. Any talk about acquiring specific coastal defence systems like NSMs on a platform like the Zetros?

Not that I have heard. The Army intends to utilize HIMARS for the hypothetical role. It's actually one of the selling points of why the Army likes PRSM so much. Not only is it a highly capable system, but future increments of PRSM will integrate both a dual-seeker to allow it to perform the anti-ship role and introduce a future variant capable of reaching distances past 800km.

That itself is a serious capability to have available. A C-130 capable, long-range land attack and anti-ship platform with the range to effectively cover key strategic waterways such as the Arctic Archipelago or Labrador Sea? You can load a HIMARS up, land it just about anywhere, and have it launch its two PRSM payloads right out the gate as soon as it rolls off.

Now, personally, I still believe that a low-end capability augmented by something like NSM has value. The Aussies believe so, which is why they're pursuing multiple layers. However, we aren't in the same position as them when it comes to that need; so the Army seems confident they can get away with just something like PRSM.

The funny thing also is you could integrate that capability on something even smaller than a Zetros when it comes to NSM. I can't say what the smallest could be, but a hypothetical LUV platform should even be able to integrate NSM

.

Q3. Was thinking about this prior about the news of 2 more tugs, but are there any plans about getting more auxiliary craft for the Navy to support the new future ships?

Not that I know of. Nothing beyond the current plans. Personally, I believe there could be a role for an expanded auxiliary that can include more tug, harbour, large (YTB); but also other platforms such as a proper tug, ocean-going, auxiliary (ATA).

Similarly, I do believe that the overall support fleet can benefit from a few platforms, including a dedicated platform for subsea support or a dedicated submarine support vessel if you can't manage one class.

Right now, the Navy is undertaking a massive look into its future fleet mix and what sort of things it needs. I am confident and hopeful that the auxiliary and support fleets that form the foundation of the fleet in place will be given love.

Q4. We talk a lot about equipment, but can you talk about any major investments in infrastructure? E.g., the National Defence Secure Campus, or other investments?

Sure! There's lots going on with infrastructure right now. DCC especially has been a busy bunch of bees as usual! If I'm not mistaken, they've awarded over fifty separate contracts over the last two months for various projects, small and large!

Anyway, for some of the bigger ones of the last year? Phase 2 of the North Park Armoury Rehabilitation and Modernization Project was officially funded. That will rehabilitate the armoury’s remaining walls, roof, foundations, and windows, as well as upgrade the armoury’s interior. The Sherbrooke Armouries Recapitalization Project also kicked off construction last year!

Work has started at CFB Trenton for the CC-330 Husky fleet that will see a bunch of new infrastructure constructed; including a new two-bay hangar, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of various taxiways and runways, a new fuel depot, and training infrastructure in anticipation of the fleet's arrival.

Work also began on the new Land-Based Test Facility at Hartlen Point for the River-class Destroyer. That will be a significant piece of sovereign infrastructure, allowing us to manage testing and integration of key systems of the River-class domestically.

We downselected the new sites for the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar (A-OTHR) system in Bexley Township and Clearview Township, respectively; though both continue to face major local opposition as of now.

On top of all that, we have had several new housing initiatives announced in the last year; including the recent announcement from last week, the acquisition of a 52-unit apartment building in Courtenay and the acquisition of a four-storey apartment complex in Esquimalt.

In terms of major active procurements? There is an APN out for the other half of STTC infrastructure in Edmonton, an APN for revamping DRDC's Ottawa Research Centre at Shirleys Bay, the future Drone Innovation Hub, and a Training and Integration Center in Esquimalt for the future River-class Destroyers.

So, there is a whole bunch going on right now, and a lot more to come! A lot of stuff goes underreported or forgotten, even by me. However, Canada is investing a lot into not only modernizing existing facilities but building up a significant amount of foundational infrastructure.

Hangars, integration facilities, research facilities, runways... This is hard infrastructure that should definitely be more celebrated; and I will work harder to get the news and information out there more!

Q5. I saw mentioned in a Defence Construction Canada product the "Northern Basing Initiative"; any chance you can dig up more on that?

The proper name is the NORAD Northern Basing Infrastructure Initiative. It is a general term for several ongoing infrastructure projects across the four FOL (Inuvik, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, and Goose Bay) and is operating in tandem with the wider Northern Support Hub initiative.

This covers a wide range of key infrastructure upgrade and construction projects, including airfield improvements, new/repurposed hangars, runways, taxiways, ammunition compounds, fuel facilities, accommodations, warehousing facilities, multi-purpose facilities, and support equipment.

These will include both dedicated military and dual-use facilities to better support Canada’s operational tempo and response capabilities in the North. Basically, it is covering infrastructure upgrades for the FOL! The focus right now is on Inuvik and Yellowknife.

Q6. Any contacts attending ShipTech Forum conference 'The Future of Maritime Platforms' today in Ottawa?

Sadly not! Although, if anyone wants to gossip, now's your chance.

Q7. Could there be new ships in the pipeline for CCG given its move to Ministry of Defence?

Ministry of National Defence you mean; and at this time, I wouldn't expect much. The CCG is already undertaking a massive, 200+ vessel expansion over the next twenty years, including multiple classes of 8000+-ton icebreakers.

By the end of it, the CCG will have twenty-six major vessels (AOPS, MPI, Program, Polar) under its banner. It will also have CCGS Naalak Nappaaluk, our new Offshore Oceanographic and Hydrographic Survey Vessel, the three new Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels, the six Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Vessels, the new Near-Shore Fisheries Science Vessels, four new Air Cushion Vehicles, and several dozen smaller vessels coming into service.

The entire CCG will be not only renewed but significantly expanded. They also have similar issues as the Navy. Space is limited, personnel issues are still a concern, and now their mandate is being further expanded.

The Hero-class will need to be replaced. They're in rough shape; and after years of struggling to get them to work for us, it's time for a replacement. Ideally, I would love to see it tied into the Orca replacement. That would be nice.

But beyond that? I think there are limits, and I don't see an indication of any new class of vessels in the plans that isn't already in the works. I think it would need to come with serious discussions on whether the Coast Guard could handle it.

Q8. Any further development on ice-class polar multifunctional security vessels detailed by CNR in Dec 2022? Proposed as mobile bases with Rangers, heli, and guns.

I have seen and heard of this concept a lot; but no matter what, no one actually seems to know what it is. I assume it was an academic proposal that a few have hung onto. I have never seen any details on it beyond CNR. I am liable to believe it is just a singular proposal.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I just have zero other info to provide on it. I sadly have never heard it mentioned outside CNR. Of course, now we are talking about a very similar concept, so maybe more info will come out eventually...

Q9. Could you do a short summary of the armoured vehicles we are getting/recently received? I can't keep up with the acronyms! Do any actually have a gun?

Sure. There actually aren't many of them, honestly; at least, not that you need to know. I know acronyms, though, can be a bit overwhelming for many who might not fully be used to them. Anywho, here's a general list for good use:

• Additional LAV (ALAV): A catchall term for the refreshment of the LAV6 fleet. It should be used as a general term for any LAV procurement. The current plan is for up to 1100 LAVs to be procured from now to 2035. It is not an official project, but it should be looked at as a long-term initiative to keep the LAV fleet modern and cycled through with a continuous procurement framework.

• Medium Cavalry Capability (MEDCAV): Separate from ALAV, MEDCAV isn't the official name of the project; however, we use it here as a simple term to refer to it for now. MEDCAV is a bit weird. It is in the early stages of identification, so we don't have many details. As of now, the project aims to acquire a family of Tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles. The current plan is for around 250-300 vehicles. Given the youth of the project, I expect much will change and be redefined over the next year. Right now, we have few details other than the desire for a modular family of STANAG VI vehicles. Current proposed contenders are the BAE CV90, Hanwha Redback, and the Rheinmetall Lynx. The current timeline is for delivery sometime between 2029 and 2032, but I caution that lots can change at this early stage.

• Heavy Direct Fire Modernization (HDFM): I wrote about HDFM a few weeks ago; but for a quick recap, HDFM aims to modernize the Canadian Army's Direct Fire capabilities by acquiring a new platform to replace the current Leopard fleet. This is another project in the early stages of identification. The previous plan was for a life extension of the current fleet out to 2035, but now we're looking at something far more comprehensive and expansionist. The timeline currently has IOC pegged at 2032, though I caution this can easily change.

• Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) APC: This is the big unknown right now. It exists; it's a thing, but sadly, we have few details. As of right now, COTS APC seems to be a stopgap measure to acquire an off-the-shelf armoured platform for the reserves. What this platform fully looks like, I don't know. Sadly, details have not come fully to me. It is likely talking about a LUV-style vehicle like the JLTV or Senator. This is still an unknown, sadly.

• Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement (DAME): Technically not an armoured vehicle, but I'll include it. DAME aims to acquire up to 170 tracked, articulated vehicles to replace the existing BV206 fleet. DAME should have an RFP out soon, with delivery scheduled for 2030. We also did a little blurb on DAME recently.

I hope this helps clarify a bit! I wanna do articles for DAME and MEDCAV soon. Hopefully, then, we'll have a full series of introductions for you to go to!

Q10. I’m absolutely astonished at the pace and scale of the development of our Defence industry, infrastructure, projects, and growing international partnerships.

Same! It's an exciting time to be engaged in the space, isn't it? At the end of the day, my goal is to educate and get people excited; so I hope this stuff helps get you as happy and jumpy as I am!

Q11. Is there a planned replacement for the dead LRSS? Does this capability exist elsewhere in the Army? It seemed important based on what I've read.

I shall quote myself from this week. For those who might not know, LRSS is dead. It isn't public or such, but the project has obviously faced significant delays and technical issues that have pushed it into the realm of no longer being feasible to continue.

What replaces it? I have no clue. Lots of people have thrown ideas out; in the immediate, utilizing COTS platforms like tethered drones seems to be an option on the table. What does a long-term replacement look like? I don't know.

It might be autonomous? Certainly, that's the way some lean. One has to remember that LRSS is an old project. Early 2000s requirements, contract first signed in 2014, and the capabilities of which have been modified and lowered as time has passed.

There is ample room to discuss whether technology has progressed enough where dedicated platforms like LRSS still have a place as they exist now, or if perhaps the future is in dispersed, modular off-the-shelf platforms that can quickly be customized and more significantly dispersed across the battlespace.

Personally, I am still skeptical about whether drones and masted UGVs can perform that role. Many seem to think so; and I believe that is the direction we'll be going in. LRSS will likely be replaced by several different modular assets working in tandem with each other. This primarily will be through autonomous systems like UAS, tethered drones, and mast-equipped UGVs. Most of these will operate from existing platforms or, at most, in a form of MUM-T.

Q12. Any idea, with all this new equipment, how many new recruits will get added to the RCAF or RCN? It seems both are about to get major replacements and large additions.

Sadly, I don't have the breakdown on hand. The ongoing plans that I have seen, at least the highest-end proposal, would see the CAF grow to about 100,000 Reg Force backed by 120,000 P Res. I should note that there is an ongoing conversation on the required authorized strength of the CAF as a whole.

What is that final number? I don't know. I doubt it will be as high as that proposal. I note that it is again the highest I have seen and heard; but I expect the actual number to be lower. There is recognition that the CAF needs to be bigger, a lot bigger.

How that will be broken down is yet to be seen. I can't say I have a good idea off the top of my head what it will be. That depends on both requirements, the capacity of the CAF, and what the federal government is willing to support financially.

Q13. Any word on collaboration with the Golden Dome? It would be politically foolish, but I’m out of the loop on that.

I shall once again quote myself from January... Canada has been discussing participation fairly openly and trying to figure out in what ways we can align, even without full participation. There is no indication the current government is against Golden Dome.

The RCAF has its own IAMD study underway in Canadian Shield. It is already fairly well aligned with what the Americans are doing. People will focus on space-based interceptors and such, but Golden Dome is far more extensive than that.

There’s much we align on without joining.

Canada is also undertaking its own extensive modernization of both NORAD and space-related assets, both of which will significantly contribute to continental defence in a variety of different ways. That includes OTHR and F-35, yes; but it is so much more extensive.

From autonomous vehicles in the Arctic to ground- and space-based optical capabilities, AEW&C aircraft, new satellite constellations for both communication and surveillance, domestic launch investments, and even establishing a VLF communication capability.

As of now, we remain open because what the Americans are doing is already very close to what we want to do, and we recognize that there is an advantage to finding ways to align with each other. I don't think we go in 100%. At the end of the day, Canadian participation in the Golden Dome will be backed by an independent Canadian ecosystem, integrated and aligning itself with American assets to create a continental IAMD layer.

Participation here does not mean giving up our own capabilities, nor does it mean being 100%. It means finding ways to support and ensure we can properly leverage each other's assets and capabilities to the fullest extent. That is the sweet spot for Golden Dome.

Q14. Can any of the Canadian LUV contenders like Roshel truly compete with JLTV’s capabilities, which, AFAIK, include superior mobility, suspension, payload, and towing?

What you are primarily looking at here is the TAK-4i intelligent independent suspension system, which, by the way, is an absolute marvel. It is what provides that mobility and suspension advantage you're talking about.

Of course, payload gets a bit trickier. Going off the manufacturers, the Senator wins in terms of raw payload. Dynamic payload, the amount of weight it can carry without sacrificing off-road capabilities, is a bit harder to figure out.

Of course, that is the advantage of utilizing a purpose-built chassis over the commercialization option. You will always have some sort of limits when it comes to a modified commercial chassis. Of course, the modern Senator has done a lot to fix some of the previous suspension issues. I haven't made note of many complaints myself from the last year of batches that have been sent to Ukraine.

Senators are still performing extremely well mobility-wise in Ukraine. It's a testament to the Roshel team that they've been able to keep up. The primary advantage of the commercial chassis is, of course, ease and cost.

A Senator is still an F-550, usually, at the end of the day. It is a known chassis with a massive supply chain and support infrastructure already built up to support it. For a country like Canada, where that has historically been a struggle with our truck and utility fleets, it is a massive advantage and provides peace of mind.

There's also cost again. A Senator is cheaper by a fair amount. I can't remember the percentage off the top of my head; something like 15% last I saw back in May? There is also the fact that Senators can be produced in far more significant numbers much more quickly.

Then, of course, there's industry support and such... I get what you're saying, though. You take some sacrifices in capability any time you go with an 80 or 90% solution.

You have to weigh that with the benefits a cheaper, less boutique platform can provide. In this case, with Roshel, we get a cheaper platform backed by a massive, established supply chain; one that supports industry and provides us with a Canadian platform that we can work collaboratively on improving.

So, in pure capabilities? In some places, the JLTV is superior. Personally, I think the Senator still takes it and has proven capable enough to be a viable and worthwhile alternative. I would even argue Terradyne, if given the time and funds, could turn out a similarly great platform. Cambli, too, even though they aren't in LUV.

I really think LUV needs to be a domestic-first option. I would have argued the same for LVM if I were smarter.

---

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.