Let's Talk with Noah (03/19/26): Big Honkin' Destroyer, CUAS Initatives, Fallout of CPSP, Website
Q&A
Happy Tuesday!
It's Let's Talk a bit late today. Sadly between the Break, being snowed in, and all the news I'm a few days late! Nevertheless, so long as things don't go terribly wrong, we will be back to our usual schedule tomorrow! So sorry for the delay everyone.
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. Any news on a replacement aircraft for the Snowbirds?
Same as always. There are plans in the books, but they're very much on a backburner. I can't say exactly what they are, but they do exist. Believe me when I say I have asked around a lot, but no one seems to know the plans that I know.
Q2. Blue sky thinking. Given the capabilities we are getting on the Rivers/CDC, do you think the RCN could benefit from a dedicated AAW Destroyer/Cruiser/Flagship?
Funny thing that many forget is that this was part of the plans at one point, at least discussed. There were plans to have a more Command/AAW variant of the future CSC and a more general purpose variant to better align with replacing both the 280 and Hali.
Those plans didn't work out as the navy decided it was better to stick to a single class of combatants with similar capabilities. I for one am historically not the biggest supporter of the idea when it comes to the River. I think we can make do with what one might call a more general-purpose fit.
I find this concept really just exists for most as a solution to what people see as a lack of 41 cells on the River-class, which is valid. Does that mean we need a 96-cell AAW Destroyer? I don't think so. I don't think it's generally something that we need, at least not as a priority.
Now you do something a bit different here. You ask about a separate, dedicated AAW/ABM platform. That is fairly new to the Q&A lol, so it makes this a bit different, but my stance remains.
Given the limited resources the Navy has, the continued focus on Continental Defence, and the fact that submarines are very likely to remain the prominent threat we will face from our major adversaries, I would rather see resources dedicated elsewhere, such as with additional JSS, a submarine tender, or ensuring a proper amount of CDC are acquired.
We won't be fighting head-on in the middle of the straits. We will not be confronting the PLAN head-on. We are not looking at being an expeditionary navy able to project amphibious power abroad. An uparmed River-class, such as the Vice-Admiral's desire to get to 48-cells on future variants, is a far more reasonable high-end for us I find.
It provides the kind of depth that I think is a fair compromise between the high-end 90+-cell concepts we see, while hopefully not overly compromising other capabilities the River-class has, like the mission bay.
I would be fine with less if that was what ended up happening, so long as it is higher than the standard 32-cell many talk about (which isn't really a standard but whatever) when discussing the amount of 41-cells a vessel has.
Anything higher would be big, expensive, and in terms of the reality Canada faces, designed to solve a potential problem we might have to face, but likely won't. It would take significant resources and money away from elsewhere that could be spent building out a proper, balanced navy.
In the game of priorities, where resources are limited and sacrifices are always being discussed, the reality is that a big, beautiful destroyer is more pet project than needed capability.
It fixes a problem that we're unlikely to face in confronting a peer adversary in a hotly contested environment without allied support to complement. Sure, that scenario might pop up in some universe, in some timeline, but you don't build a navy off of such a hypothetical, lower on the list of concern possibility.
So sadly, unless someone can do a great job convincing, I don't see a reason.
Q3. Do you think Topshee stands a chance at being CDS someday? From all the interviews I've seen of him, he seems pretty switched on.
I don't know if I can comment on that. I couldn't tell you what makes the right choice for CDS. I think that the Vice-Admiral is a charismatic, very smart, very outgoing person who I believe has a great grasp on the current issues and the future he wants to see. Maybe that makes him really great for the role. On a personal level, I think he could do it and do a great job as an outsider's perspective.
However, that is a question I don't know if I can truly answer from my position. Maybe he does? I think he could.
Q4. Any word on possibly expanding the C-130J fleet or diversifying with A-400Ms or C-390s?
I love how we've made airlift a weekly thing here lolololol. No, it hasn't changed. The Air Force is studying what the future needs might be, and starting to discuss in light of Army restructuring what might be needed of them, but it is on the lower list of priorities right now.
So in other words, you're a few years away from hearing much of anything on this file, save a big shift in priorities. Maybe that will be more highlighted when the All-Domain study comes out (whenever that's done).
Q5. While larger VSHORAD/SHORAD GBAD systems are in a weird limbo state, are there any plans for squad or individual troop level C-UAS?
You already got the Counter-Uncrewed Aerial Systems UOR; what more do you need? There is a CAF-wide CUAS initiative currently in the works that is looking at what the future needs for CUAS capabilities might be as a whole.
It was under the CJOC, but I believe it's now the file of CCSI. ONSAF sets out the mandate to explore an expanded CUAS capability as part of the broader Integrated Air and Missile Defence Initiative. That will likely include more portable, individual, and handheld non-kinetic CUAS systems for the entirety of CAF, not just the Army.
However, this is an area where I am not versed on the current plans. They exist, and they're working on developing the concept and fleshing it out. I believe there is a working group stood up already?
However, I am not privy to the details of what is being decided. I have tried to get info, though sadly I have not. It is a tough file. It seems like it wants to be proactive, rapid, and expansive; however, the current system still isn't in the state to really facilitate that well. That's especially true when it comes to a field like CUAS that is rapidly shifting and evolving on the timeframe of weeks and days.
It's not easy, but rest assured there is stuff being done.
Q6. Has the RCAF determined which squadron will be the first to convert to the CF-35A?
The one you want the least (I have no idea if they have. I don't know it).
Q7. Do you think the CDC will be built more like a pickup truck with a big multipurpose deck/bay, or will it be more of a pure fighting corvette dedicated to patrol?
The Vigilance concept of a tiny vessel with a bunch of container space seems fairly dead. We are very much in the territory of discussion where we're looking at a true corvette, not a LUSV or a modular platform. They will likely have container space ingrained in the design, but that could be dedicated space, a mission bay, or aft space. However, it won't be the centrepiece of the platform.
That is, if the current concept as being discussed is funded and supported. It might not be. CDC is a concept right now. It isn't funded, wasn't in ONSAF, hasn't seen any releases. Things can very much change still. The corvette/light frigate isn't set in stone.
However, it is the current concept that is being presented, and we need to run with what is being presented.
Q8. CPSP is portrayed as a start of a new partnership between the winner and us; how likely will that affect projects like GBAD or IFM etc.
I don't think it will have as big an impact as others think it will. It might add an extra tick, or another factor, but overall those projects have their own desires, concerns, and internal preferences that will shape them more than the submarines will at the end of the day.
It might be a factor dependent on the winner. Hanwha has a bit more there solely because they would be bidding on things like IFM, and in a potential win could leverage CPSP as a foundation to argue committing to building up wider cooperation in different domains.
However, will that be a major factor in a choice? I don't think it will be as much as some others do.
Q9. Do Canadian LUV contenders like Roshel have truly comparable capability to purpose-built MILSPEC vehicles like JLTV? If not, how much of a gap is there?
I talked about this a few weeks ago funny enough. You guys are really interested in Roshel recently! See my answer there. It provides a comparison and little breakdown of capabilities well.
Q10. Anything known about plans to soothe the hurt feelings of the eventual loser on the CPSP deal? Losing will be huge news in either country.
I have no idea. I don't know what's being talked about there. That's likely a PMO question, and I am not well connected there! Certainly, there is some concern about it, and some debate as we've seen in the conversation about splitting the fleet.
As for actual plans? If they exist I don't know them, and I have never heard of the idea of German or Korean appeasement contingencies existing.
Q11. Will CCG vessels receive military grade data links to share Intel with the RCN?
It's certainly in the discussions! As part of the shift to the DND (along with their new mandate), the CCG is expected to further enhance its cooperation with the Royal Canadian Navy, including in sharing information and coordinating operations.
One thing to note is that the Coast Guard move was very sudden. It was a choice of the PMO, and as such, a lot was left to be worked out later, including on this front. There is ongoing work to explore how the Navy and Coast Guard can best share information and align with each other.
That includes datalinks, integrating SCIF into future CCG vessels, and best practices for managing information and sharing it. All of these are in active discussion because the move was sudden, and it was decided to figure things out after.
So it will be some time before we see the proper plan in place and get a better idea of exactly what will be included. A lot will be done as CCG vessels make their way through construction, at least in my prediction.
Q12. Are there any rumors or word on CAFCYBERCOM getting a live cyber range (beyond CSTE/ICTE) similar to Polaris in Latvia or a dedicated cyber officer occupation?
Cyber is sadly an area I still struggle with. You know who doesn't though? My bestie Alex Rudolph and Cyber in Context, who also has a Slido Q&A! He is the person to ask these kinds of questions as he is far more plugged in than me.
Q13. Why is the CAF taking so long to come to a decision on air defence/CUAS systems? This isn't the time they should be dithering about choosing a system.
Because in many cases we're still operating under the old system. That system is risk-aversive, bureaucratic, and not designed for swift turnaround. The previous GBAD project was limited in scope and dated to 2017. It was a holdover of the GWOT.
It wasn't until Ukraine that the conversation on GBAD further came into the picture. Even then we did have a project; however, you can't just change the rules of the game in the middle of it. You can't just do a U-turn on a project and significantly shift priorities and demands.
So GBAD became Uplift UOR to get something, and we're essentially starting from the beginning on both Enduring phases. They're essentially new projects with some weird ancestral heritage to the OG GBAD project, which now looks down upon them because they basically killed it and told Uplift it was GBAD now.
Does that make sense? We're now starting to see more progress being made, and more work being done, but even then the DIA is still getting started. It isn't a standalone agency yet, and the mandates and authorities aren't there yet to act with the desired speed that we would like.
Most of the tools are there, but not all of them.
Q14. Is there any reason why they haven't announced the signing of the CMAR contract? Seems like an easy PR win for updating kit and bringing a smile to the troops.
Sometimes delaying the newsletter has funny results. To answer briefly, the issue was that it kept getting pushed back. Contract was signed, but delays, trips, and other announcements all took priority over the CMAR announcement. So it was more a timing issue. They did try lol, but things kept coming up.
Q15. What's your take on two finalist designs for CPSP? Assume a single winner. Willing to share your favoured model? I see the 212CD best suited for Arctic ops.
You'll read it soon enough ;)
Q16. One of the other commenters discussed the CD expeditionary. How capable are the models current contenders are offering at expeditionary operations?
Well see, that can get tricky. See, everyone lies.
Okay, not lies, but they aren't going to tell you the true endurance of either sub. That is the kind of confidential information that you and me don't get to hear because it is a massive security risk for our adversaries to know.
What I can say is that both submarines offer endurance beyond four weeks and ranges beyond 7000nm. They are both globally-deployable platforms able to operate submerged across our major oceans. That is the unreal power of Fourth-Generation Fuel Cell systems and modern Lithium-Ion batteries.
Both meet our minimum requirements in this department quite handily. I doubt we will ever know the true numbers, especially as better battery systems and battery cells start to come onto market.
Q17. Is there a timeline for additional Orca class PCT vessels?
I don't know any timeline myself. I have heard 2030 tossed around; however, I stress that the project is still in its early stages, unfunded, blah, blah, blah...
You know the rest there. There is a desire to move quickly, and once we start moving, it should be a very quick turnover time. These will be fairly basic, minimalist vessels as far as I know. That could change; however, there is a desire to acquire these vessels quickly so that they can become available to assist in growing the training capacity available to the navy.
Q18. Has the Iran war affected any CAF purchase of munitions?
Not that I have heard. If I do hear something, then believe me, I'll let you know!
Q19. With the sheer number of weapons systems that the CAF is attempting to purchase and deploy, is it likely that nothing gets finished in a reasonable time?
I mean, sure. Lots can go wrong. That's especially true when you're trying to get several major projects all done at the same time in a system that is still not adept to handling them. Poor Fuhr, Mcguinty, and Lightbound have no rest lol. They gotta manage all these major projects, standing up the DIA, implementing the DIS, and getting money out the door in a system that is still very much broken.
The old system didn't just vanish with announcements. It's still there. It's still the primary way of doing things. We're forcing things through it. We're using every tool we have to get things done while trying to also build up the new system from its crumbling, rotten foundation.
So it is a valid concern to worry that one wrong move, one mistake or fault can lead to it all crashing down. There is always risk of losing oneself in times of profound change. However, I will say that a lot of the current team have proven me wrong before, and that I do believe they have a desire to see this succeed. They have the mandate. They have the broad political support. They know the system is failing, and know they have only one shot to make this new one work. I like to give people some benefit, to give them a chance.
So I am confident we won't see this. I have faith.
Q20. Update on the new website? I don't mind substack, but I would prefer something dedicated. I hope the whole archive can be kept!
It's a... work in progress. It is still very much more a concept than something I could, like, show pictures of. I have a very specific vision of what I want to do. I know what I want, and I have to turn it into a reality that works.
I want more than news. I want more than just articles. Yet I don't want it bloated. I have ideas, ideas I will trial here first and foremost. You'll see them in the coming weeks!
It's going to be beautiful. It's going to be what I want out of this. It's going to be so much more than just this. I want to make it right from the start, from the launch. That takes time as I am one man lol. I will also try to keep the whole archive, don't worry!
Q21. I've heard that the RCD will use an American CMS, but once someone said the Canadian CMS330 would be used as well, and now I'm not sure what to think?
The River-class will have a form of CMS330 in CTI. The primary role of CTI is to provide an integration for all the non-AEGIS systems in the River-class. The problem here, sorta, is that for the first batch a lot of that has been removed to save time and provide as minimal risk to the first three as possible. In some cases, like SeaSpider, the system just isn't at the maturity level but might be integrated later.
The Ultra ASW suite will use CTI, same with the MDA sensors. Vulcano would have used it, but it's gone now. Of course, the value is that it is there for potential future systems that we might want to integrate down the road.
So the answer is that it has both lol. It's just that right now the vast majority will run through AEGIS. That can shift in the future as new systems are installed and certain technologies mature, in which case CTI will be available to them.
Q22. Your post announcing the midshore multi-mission vessel had a picture at the top of an impressive ship with a deck gun. Is that what it would look like? Wow!
Sadly no. As I said in the post, we don't know what the CCG Vanguard will look like. That was just a generic picture Kongsberg uses to represent the family. Once I have a design concept available to post, I will make a post about it!
They certainly won't be armed. There are no plans to arm any of the CCG vessels.
Let's Talk is proudly supported by
