Let's Talk with Noah (03/10/26): New Defence Policy, CDC VLS, Roshel, Defending Satellites, CUAS

Q&A

Happy Tuesday!

It's Let's Talk time! A bit later than I wanted but thats fine. I had a busy newsday today, as you can probably tell. So sadly I'm a bit behind schedule. Luckily everyone was nice enough to not drop the most major news possible. If everyone could stop dropping big things on Monday and Tuesday I would appreciate it.

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. You should do a podcast with Roshel to discuss capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses compared to other platforms + their plans for improving Senator for LUV

I would be happy to if the Roshel team was ever free lol. Next time I see Roman, likely at CANSEC, I will ask him to do a big sit-down. Of course, I'm always open to interviews. My policy is usually if someone asks if I can interview them, I'll oblige.

I don't usually ask for interviews. Most people with the idea come to me first and ask if I wanna. Of course, I'm always happy to provide a platform. Content is content, and it gives me a chance to question people!

Just make it known that I will ask very random, technical questions lol.

Q2. With all the talk of new and modernized fleets of ships, aircraft, and vehicles, will the Cdn government release an updated "Our North, Strong and Free" plan?

There is a mandate to release a new Defence Policy in 2028. That is what the current plan is; however, there has been some rumor and indication that there might be an earlier policy release.

ONSAF is just under two years old, yet the fact remains that it is already horribly outdated and in need of replacement. It is a bygone product of a Pre-5%, Pre-DIA, Pre-DIS era. One whose mandate and priorities, while not out of date, are now in need of revision and expansion.

So much has changed, mentalities have shifted, and Defence is now a priority economic driver. ONSAF isn't bad, mind you. I think it is a fine policy, but it isn't cut out for the scale and demands that have been put onto us.

So a policy before 2028 feels right. I would say it is needed to truly capitalize on the opportunities present and to react to the changes we've seen over the last year. We fundamentally exist in a different, near-alien environment come the end of this year compared to what ONSAF was written for and in.

That mandates a need to reevaluate in my books.

Q3. Have you heard about load-bearing combat exoskeletons for the CAF? Interest seemed popular in the late 2000s but then faded. Rucksacks aren't getting lighter...

Mawashi and Logistik are who you're looking for in the Canadian scene. I've heard a few people talk about the idea, but it isn't really something talked about. Exoskeletal systems are a very mid-2000s concept lol. You're right that it used to be a fairly popular topic.

The issue is always that most exoskeletal systems have struggled to live up to the hype and are oftentimes more expensive to procure than their value. Designing a universal exoskeletal system is difficult. It requires pinpoint precision and alignment to the body's joints and movements to ensure the system does not impact a soldier's ability to move or constrain them.

It requires balancing things like weight to ensure the system itself doesn't become bearing on the user, nor heavy in a way that might restrict movement in things like mud or snow. It requires ensuring the system is able to operate in constraining environments, like jungles or in rubble-filled areas, without risk of getting snagged or damaged on things.

It isn't really easy, and it isn't something I really know well. That kind of precision also means additional cost, and these products are already exquisitely expensive as is. Logistik continues to show off one at CANSEC every year, but practical reality and other areas of priority continue to keep it in the cool but fantastical grouping.

Q4. I see interviews with Topshee all the time. With everything going on, I would think especially RCAF would have lots to say. Are they being muzzled for now?

No one is being muzzled. Vice-Admiral Topshee just really loves speaking to people and has a mentality that he should be front and center in engaging with the public. He also encourages others to do so as well.

I will defend Lieutenant-General Speiser-Blanchet here as she has been in this role for only eight months and has tried to get out there to people. Lieutenant-General Wright has also been a lot more active, but has also been dealing with the Army's restructuring in everything.

Both have been getting out there, but the Vice-Admiral has gone out of his way to be very proactive, something I will always be grateful for as him sitting with me helped explode my popularity. It is a wonderful mentality to have, and one I hope his successor continues to uphold.

It might not be that there isn't much to say, but just that at the end of the day, there might be other priorities right now that take precedence, especially if you're eight months into the job and in the middle of both a major review and the largest recapitalization of the RCAF in decades.

Q5. Policy Hawk proposed River Class as an option to replace the Constellation Class. Despite all the positive rationale, I can't fathom political USA support?

I love Hawky's idea. I also can't fathom the current administration being open to it, but a part of me wishes they would. That would be fantastic. The Type 26 is already becoming the backbone platform in the North Atlantic between us, the UK, and Norway. Adding on the United States would fully cement that role as the Atlantic backbone.

Sadly, I don't see it for a number of reasons. This administration wants a cheap, American replacement ready to enter production and hopefully scale up quick. Adopting a still-in-the-works, British-based design like the Type 26, despite my desire, isn't something they would likely be interested in.

Coming off FREMM and Conny especially, the administration likely isn't willing to explore another foreign design even with a lot of work already put into Americanizing the platform. That doesn't make it an American-Off-The-Shelf (AOTS) system. The Super Legend is American, available, cheaper, and would likely be in the water quicker even if less capable. It's about hulls in the water. They seem committed to making the sacrifice in capabilities to ensure hulls are available.

I could go on about why the Super Legend would likely win out on the political side. Oftentimes we forget that having ready political capital available is important. In this case, while I love the idea, I sadly see no political motivation nor reason why this administration would entertain the idea.

Q6. Have you heard anything more or progress on the AAR program for the Bombardier 6500? This could be a serious gamechanger for Globaleye

I have not. It is something the Air Force wants to work with Bombardier on because they see value in it, but it isn't something where a lot of progress has been made. It is still in the very early stages, like many things.

I expect that we won't hear much on it for a long while. If you want to integrate AAR on the Globaleye, or even with Phoenix, you're going to be undertaking some serious engineering to get it to work properly. It won't be a quick, easy task to undertake.

It would absolutely be a massive game-changer for the 6500, and would start to make it a much more viable option for a number of different roles the RCAF might have even beyond just AEWC.

If I hear anything more, I'll certainly let you know! Sadly, I just don't have anything to say.

Q7. Me again, any updates on the CMAR?

Contract is signed. First delivery fall-ish this year? Set to be announced eventually. No, I don't know the optics either.

Q8. I read again a suggestion of split CPSP order, TKMS East, KSS-III West Coast. Greater strength roles? Negotiating tactics? Tri-continental economic benefits?

Please find my article from earlier this week if you hadn't seen it. I think you asked this before I posted, but for those who might have missed it, I go into length here on it.

Q9. Any talk of an up-armed River class flight II (a la proposed Australian Hunter class upgrade)? Maybe 3 to 6 ships with 96 x vls and 16 x nsm.

There are always talks about up-arming the Rivers in future batches. Always. The Vice-Admiral himself would like to see more, closer to 48 cells. However, beyond that? There aren't any discussions of turning a few into dedicated AAW Destroyers. We aren't investigating that.

The Navy would prefer to keep the Mission Bay. That is a big holdup as one would need to remove it to get to that level of cells as you propose. The Mission Bay is a critically important capability for the Navy.

On a vessel with little top room for future growth, the Mission Bay becomes the primary area that the Navy can rapidly onboard new capabilities. While many people question the value now, I argue primarily because containerized and autonomous systems are still uncommon, the Mission Bay has immense potential to really expand upon the River-class capabilities.

As such, the Navy isn't keen at this time to lose it. Maybe when CDC comes, depending on numbers, and time passes, they'll revisit the idea. However, for now, we want the River-class to do what we think they're best at, being the best Jack-of-all-trades possible because we don't know what comes after them.

We work with what we have. Right now, we have no CDC. We have no submarines. The entirety of our maritime combatant capability is being put into the 15 River-class. That means that, at least for the foreseeable future, we aren't going to jeopardize things by looking at a massively redesigned AAW variant.

Again, that may change. Ten years from now, who knows the position we'll be at. However, for now, I don't see it happening.

Q10. Any discussion of adding mortars on the DAME assets?

No. There are only discussions now for the four, those being Command Post (CP), Troop Carrying, Cargo and Equipment Carrying, and Ambulance variants currently being requested. While there is room in the future to explore other variants or capabilities, it isn't primarily a concern.

DAME is designed to be entirely used within the Continental Defence role. As one can envision, there is little concern for DAME being needed to perform tasks like Indirect Fires or such. It's why we're primarily looking at an unarmoured, unarmed platform. We don't really expect much fighting where they'll be.

So at this time, when the BV206 fleet is in rough shape and reduced to almost nothing, there is a pressing need to focus on what is needed now and revisit other capabilities later. I would love to see a dedicated MRT variant myself.

Q11. Further to another reader's question, when might we expect the navy to begin sharing possible flight II design changes and weapons configurations?

Not for a long while. We're still figuring out Batch I as is! We're still a few years out until we get any official Batch II changes or such. I wouldn't be waiting on them for at least three or four years. The focus now is on cementing Batch I and giving time for capabilities we might want in future batches to develop.

Personally? I don't think Batch II will look much different from Batch I.

Q12. In the discussions around ESCP-P satcom has there been any mention of how Canada will defend its satellites against cyber/kinetic/directed energy threats?

There are discussions on this. The fact is that defending space assets is very, very hard. It is hard to keep pace with the developments our adversaries are making in this space.

Currently, the primary focus is on building resilience to cyber attacks. This means incorporating advanced encryption, secure ground-to-space links, and anti-jamming capabilities into future constellations. There is recognition that electronic warfare or hacking attempts are far more likely in the near term than physical attacks, making this kind of hardening an absolute priority.

When it comes to kinetic strikes or directed energy weapons like lasers, our defensive options are admittedly more limited. Our strategy relies heavily on space domain awareness and the ability to maneuver assets out of harm's way if a physical threat is tracked. However, building significant evasive capabilities into polar satellites adds considerable cost, fuel, and weight to the platforms.

Because unilateral defense in orbit is so challenging, our approach is deeply tied to allied cooperation. We need to work closely with allies like the United States through NORAD if we want to maximize our chances of protecting critical assets like satellites through early threat detection. Deterrence here will ultimately rely on a collective allied response rather than a Canadian satellite's ability to survive, which sadly is minimal in these kinds of physical attacks, or attacks through Anti-Satellite Satellites. That's another area our adversaries are exploring.

Ultimately, there is no silver bullet for completely protecting a constellation from a determined, capable adversary. The overarching goal is to make these systems as resilient as possible while ensuring we have redundant backup plans if a critical node is compromised. That's why having a domestic launch capability is so important to building space resilience and ensuring constellations can remain credible even if degraded through adversarial actions.

Q13. Anything new or substantive to share on CDC, requirements phase, weapons, or systems wish list? This procurement has me very interested.

Sadly, not since my last update! At least nothing overly substantial. The requirements are fairly set as is, and I think most won't change from this point. It is still possible the Navy is told to scale back demands and expectations, but for now?

My last post remains accurate to the project as it is.

Q14. Have you heard anything about procuring electric motorcycles? I've seen several articles about combining their use with larger charging vehicles.

I also saw that article lol. Sadly, I have not seen or heard anything personally, but never say never! Others like the Ukrainians have utilized the concept decently well, so maybe there is a role for it. I don't fully know myself. I would have to see it myself and hear the concept before I trust any company. If I hear anything, I'll let you know.

Q15. With the proliferation of cheap one-way attack drones, the cost of missile AA seems unsustainable. Is Canada looking at gun-based systems like C-RAM?

Enduring Phase III will be investigating gun-based systems for VSHORAD. Its timelines are still a bit messy, and it's still in the Identification stage... but it is looking at VSHORAD systems that will likely include a gun-based system.

That isn't to say, though, you might not see the discussion happen in other ways. ALAV discussion includes talking about CUAS and what an organic self-defense capability looks like for the future LAV fleet.

Similarly, there are discussions in LUV about potential future armaments, as we have discussed before, and what's needed to be survivable in the modern battlespace. The next generation of programmable airburst munitions and compact AESA radars/electro-optical/infrared sensors are becoming quite capable and easier to integrate. There's also a growing desire for future turrets to possess the physical ability to elevate to high angles to engage targets flying directly overhead.

These aren't the only things needed, and there are still issues. You still need to translate all that raw sensor data into an accurate firing solution. You still need to ensure that the digital architecture exists also to further turn a singular LAV (in this hypothetical) into a dedicated kill chain.

You'll still need proper solutions. You'll still need dedicated Kinetic CUAS options and VSHORAD. However, the future of CUAS will depend upon several, often overlapping layers of capabilities dedicated to different tasks and levels of urgency. That includes finding ways to make sure that future platforms can utilize their existing systems to perform CUAS tasks if needed, even as an emergency.

Q16. What kind of weapons packages does Roshel produce for the Senator family?

Roshel offers both manned and unmanned options for the Senator. You'll primarily see Senators equipped in Ukraine with a manned, manual turret. This is the most basic form of armament you'll see a Senator have.

As seen in Ukraine, Senators can be equipped with a number of small arms, primarily 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 14.5mm, and .50 cal machine guns. You'll also oftentimes see Senators equipped with 40mm automatic grenade launchers.

Rarely, if ever, have I seen a Senator equipped with Anti-Tank Guided Missiles or Short-Range Air Defence systems, though it is possible. I have also heard of some talks of integrating turrets up to 30mm, but I have never seen it myself. Some people have confused the Varta 2, a similar vehicle, which has done such as a Senator.

Roshel has also partnered with Rheinmetall to integrate the Fieldranger family onto the Senator. Fieldranger is a family of modular, fully digital, and stabilized Remote Weapon Systems (RWS). The architecture is scalable across four primary variants depending on vehicle size and payload requirements:

• Fieldranger Light (optimized for 5.56mm or 7.62mm machine guns)

• Fieldranger Multi (supporting 12.7mm heavy machine guns or 40mm automatic grenade launchers)

• Fieldranger Dual (capable of mounting a main armament alongside a coaxial weapon)

• Fieldranger 20 (built around a medium-caliber 20mm automatic cannon).

The system's modular design also permits the integration of supplemental effectors, such as smoke obscurants, anti-tank guided missiles, or radar packages for counter-unmanned aerial system (C-UAS) configurations.

Most 4x4 Protected Mobility Vehicles like the Senator have similar armaments across the board. Some have put in the effort to get more systems certified, such as the JLTV, but generally, most of these platforms share the same or similar capabilities when it comes to space and payload.

You ain't gonna honestly see a lot of variance or differences in the armament of this class of vehicles. You're gonna see a lot of 7.62mm, 12.7mm, and some .50 cals, maybe a 40mm every so often. If it were up to me? We would seriously consider adding an organic VSHORAD and ATGM capability to the LUV fleet from the onset.

I would also consider what a universal CUAS variant should look like. That includes the use of micro-missile effectors and reusable counter-drone drones on the future LUV platform so they can provide their own self-defence. That, though, is a conversation for another time, or until Mark shows up in the comments.

Q17. TKMS should consider delivering 6 standard CDs for the Atlantic then engineering and transitioning to 6 stretched expeditionary variants for the Pacific

They've put out the offer AFAIK. They've offered to work with Canada to deliver the first as a standard CD while later variants could be modified or such to fit with other requirements. The CD E, I don't know how far along the design process it is. Either way, such a choice would need to be made early in the process.

It isn't as simple as adding an insert to the hull. There is significant engineering and validation work that needs to be done before such a design can begin construction. If we want to ensure (in this hypothetical) that we can stick to our timelines, then we would need to ensure that we start collaboration early to lock down what we need and what we want from TKMS.

It is possible, though, and has been on the table.

Q18. About the CDC project: Are its specifications tied to which Sub is picked? I expect it will need more Strike-VLS cells if the 212CD is picked over the KSS-III.

No. There is no relation. I have gone as far as to ask people. VLS for CDC is tied to being survivable in the modern battlespace. A combatant needs to have some access to VLS to ensure it can protect itself from modern threats.

The proliferation of advanced Cruise, Anti-Ship, and Ballistic missiles to non-state and traditional low-capability actors presents an increasingly difficult situation for modern combatants.

Do I really need to give the generic tag about the Red Sea and Houthis and such? If you want a combatant that can actually operate in contested environments that will increasingly include traditionally poor and underequipped states potentially operating fairly capable anti-ship systems?

They need to have a scalable, modular self-defence capability that includes short and medium-range anti-air, anti-ballistic capabilities. That capability doesn't need to be AEGIS or such. It can be fairly basic and crude, but you do need it.

It isn't the 90s anymore. Missile systems are becoming better and more accessible to our adversaries. CDC needs VLS because it is useless as a combatant without it. It isn't survivable even in areas with a moderately equipped adversary like the Houthi, let alone someone like Iran or other such states we might have to contend with.

It isn't decided by CPSP. What's happening with VLS will be whatever we can get out of the platform for its own survivability.

Q19. How do you think the reports about the F35's combat effectiveness during the Iran strikes affect our report? Extremely positive and favorable?

It won't because everyone acknowledges the F35's capabilities. I can safely say even those among the Gripen lovers in government acknowledge the F-35 is a very capable system.

It is also expensive and doesn't provide the economic benefits that those same people in government desire. The question has never been on capability. No one is arguing the next-level capabilities the Panther provides.

I don't see anyone who is against the 35 on the federal level changing their minds over the war in Iran. If they were, they would have been convinced a long time ago, like during the 12 Day War as an example. I don't see Iran being a major effect.

Q20. Do companies ever come to you because you know things you shouldn't? I know you've reported on stuff at my own company before I even know about it.

I know my reporting has caused some fights because sometimes I get ahead of myself lol. You're best assumption should be that no matter what, I already know everything about you and what you're doing. That's my job after all and trust me… If I wanna know something about you, I'll get my hands on it one way or another.

The best thing you can do for your mental health is not worry about what Noah knows. Im just your friendly clown. I promise I won't tell anything too revealing. :)

---

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.