Let's Talk with Noah (03/24/26): River-class changes, Additive Manufacturing, Minesweeping, Autonomous Systems
Q&A
Happy Tuesday!
It's Let's Talk a lot late today. Im gonna be real I took a long nap this afternoon and then had a buddy come over, so it's Lets Talk After Dark this week!
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 plans to add an organic fabrication capability to engineer squadrons? Using systems like the Rheinmetall Mobile Smart Factory, or SPEE3D's EMU?
We're really only getting into the basics of additive manufacturing from a CAF standpoint. We're still very much in the experimental stages of what that sort of looks like. The Army has utilized additive systems for years now. You can find them around if you look hard enough. The Tactics School has a few last I checked? The ALSC, if you're interested, actually has some great resources and model files available!
We've integrated additive technologies in limited scope as part of both our current commitment in Latvia and as a training aid as part of Op Unifier. We've had printers in Latvia for a few years honestly; however, they remain limited in scope and scale.
The Navy has been using additive manufacturing on the maintenance side of things for a long while. They're actually quite experimental and forthcoming, to their credit, with trying to utilize the technology. FMFCB and FMFCS both utilize 3D technologies to aid in ship repair and maintenance across the fleet and have for many years now. There is an excellent article about it.
The DRDC is also working with Dalhousie to study utilizing additive manufacturing as a way to support the Victoria-class fleet. For the Navy, additive manufacturing is especially supportive when talking about platforms where replacement parts for aging systems might not be available anymore. Additive manufacturing provides a potential relief where the Navy could continue to support her aging platforms without the stress of hunting for long-discontinued parts.
The RCAF has the Plan Qulliq (PQ) Innovation Lab that we just wrote about a few weeks ago. That is currently located at CFB Trenton but is expected to be expanded upon in the future to other bases. Admittedly, the Air Force is a bit farther behind here; however, they are now taking the experimental steps to start integrating additive technologies.
DRDC is also being expansive on this front. Drone Surge had a very heavy desire to explore how dispersed additive manufacturing could be used to quickly scale Canada’s supply of autonomous and unmanned aerial systems.
As for your specific question? I have not heard directly of such systems being on the procurement docket. Perhaps we'll see them pop up... I think they will be in at least a limited, experimental format in the coming years.
However, for a specific project? No. I have yet to hear of such an attempt for portable additive manufacturing systems being procured at scale. With Inflection Point, the DIS, and ongoing experimentation all pointing to additive manufacturing as an emerging technology of interest? I don't think it will be out of sight for long.
Call it an inevitable, but without any timeline I can give.
Q2. Your last Q&A mentioned cutting capability from the RCD. Is there a rough list of the compromises so far of what they will be vs what they started as?
Well, after yesterday I guess this question is even more important lol.
I think cutting capability was the wrong term, because it makes it sound like certain fundamental capabilities were cut out. That isn't the case here. What's more accurate is to say certain capabilities we wanted to have were either dropped or swapped out for various reasons.
There is no general list available of these; however, I can go over them here for you so you have a future list to go back to. Keep in mind that the capabilities and such of the River-class are not yet finalized and changes can still happen between now and the final design review.
However, consider this a general list of changes that have happened from the original hopes:
• CAMM/ExLS was removed primarily because of integration issues, as a cost-saving measure, and because of its more widescale use among allies. There was also a desire to bring the number of munitions down; however, that seems more personal to people I've talked with over official reasoning. CAMM/ESSM overlap has never come up from my side. RIM-116 will take its place, which is funny because that was a plan at a time. Once CAMM was dropped, ExLS lost its only real purpose.
• Recent choice, but Vulcano was dropped due to integration issues, difficulty between OEMs in resolving those issues, and to save space and weight on the already tight River-class. The Vulcano will be replaced by the Mk.45 127mm like our commonwealth cousins.
• Lionfish left with Vulcano. Once Vulcano was dropped, it made little sense to continue with another Leonardo product in Lionfish. As far as I know, the MK.38 Mod 4 will replace it.
• NGDS was dropped for Nulka as a derisk. NGDS is still fairly new, had to still be integrated, and Nulka is a far more common system among our allies. You'll notice derisking a lot. We want hulls in the water sooner than later, and don't want to risk delaying things because of integration issues. This is a case like many.
• Zeus was in the same suite and was dropped with AN/SLQ-32(V)6 taking the ESM role for the same reasons: commonality and derisking potential issues with integration.
• Raven was dropped as well. This one made me a bit sad, as Raven was designed as the next-gen to RAMSES. I never got a straight answer on Raven. I honestly don't think I ever asked? The thing I have heard is that the system was still too early in development and presented too much of an experimental risk to take on the first batch.
• SeaSpider was never confirmed for anything, but people still bring it up. SeaSpider, anyways, is another developmental risk with a long history of struggle and delay. You ain't seeing it anytime soon.
These are the major ones you'll hear about around. The common cause for many is simply integration risk, and wanting to make sure we have as easy a time getting the first batch of the River-class in service as soon as possible. AEGIS also provides issues here, but that is a different topic.
Of course, I'm being fairly generic with a lot of these answers, and there is deeper we could explore. However, I feel this gives you the gist of the issues. We can always explore the depths of the troubles at a later point.
Q3. Is there anything on the books for a specific light cavalry vehicle now that medium and heavy are being worked on? Maybe upgrades on TAPV?
There is no specific Light Cavalry Vehicle project. That role will fall to the existing LAV/LUV/TAPV fleets depending on who you ask (I see you James. You don't need to rant on TAPV) and what you believe the definition should be.
The official definition is as follows:
“A wheeled vehicle with a cannon or direct fire weapons systems designed to defeat a similar threat at ranges beyond 2000 metres, and integral protection designed to defend against a similarly equipped threat.”
However, you'll find a lot of people are heavily against this definition. The modern debate on what constitutes a light and medium cavalry vehicle is something ongoing among folks. Some people adopt a looser definition, some are quite rigid and strict.
Is a modern LAV 6 a Light Cavalry Vehicle? What about an ACSV? What fits the light category? Would something like a Senator count as a Light Cavalry Vehicle? You can find people (and I have) who would argue every way.
So technically there is no Light Cavalry project; however, there are other projects which could fall into that category (LUV, ALAV) depending.
Q4. Has there been any mention of procuring a containerized submarine rescue vehicle that can work on existing RCN and CCG vessels?
There are discussions; however, the primary focus remains on the submarines themselves. All that stuff will come later from talking around. Get the submarines figured out, then we can start talking everything else in proper detail.
There is the NATO Submarine Rescue System (NSRS) that we could possibly leverage. Canada has experience utilizing the AOPS in a submarine rescue role with containerized systems. You can see it in our post about Exercise Viperfish Mercy.
It isn't a new concept for us; however, procuring our own dedicated system is something the Navy plans to discuss and debate more after we have a submarine downselected. It is an idea floating around, though.
Q5. At Seapower 2025 Topshee said the CDC could be 2500-4000t. That could be in the 110-120m range. Can the current unmodified base infrastructure handle that size?
The 105m limit never disappeared. That would be the optimal max length because it means that the existing berthing infrastructure could support the fleet without modification or needing to look at new infrastructure.
Going up as high as 120m means that the existing infrastructure in place would need to be upgraded to accommodate, or other facilities looked at. For the Continental Defence Corvette, that second option might not be out of the realm of possibility.
There's some discussion as well of the possibility that CDC could leverage things like existing Coast Guard infrastructure as well, though they will also be constrained themselves as things like the Program Icebreakers and MPI come in.
There's also the possibility of new facilities being constructed. Prince Rupert has always had some interest around as a possible naval base given that it is the closest West Coast port to the Arctic. The Vice-Admiral has discussed recently the idea of a naval base in Quebec as well.
Existing infrastructure in Halifax and Esquimalt will be hard pressed with the River-class, AOPS, Submarines, and a potential light frigate, especially dependent on the potential numbers CDC comes up with. 105m and below provides a comfort region that we could feasibly handle with existing plans; however, the Navy has made clear they'll take the pain here if a larger vessel proves exponentially more capable to justify it.
Given the Continental role that CDC is expected to undertake, one could argue that basing some in places like St. John's, Prince Rupert, or the St. Lawrence is actually far better aligned to their goals and an opportunity that the Navy should exercise on if the fleet proves to be of a substantial size.
There will need to be work done at 120m either way; however, solutions do exist on the table depending on ambition and how far we are willing to go.
Q6. During WWII, each Fletcher-class DD was built and commissioned within 1 year. What is the largest vessel Canada could build and commission within 12-24 months?
You can commission a fairly large platform in a year depending on your definition. A combatant? That's gonna be hard, but not because of building the hull, but the long-lead times for a lot of the equipment that would be required to make them a combatant would mean that you're inherently limited to what you could build bar finding unique ways to get things (cannibalization, tapping into foreign supply) and even then there are things you just wouldn't be able to easily or reasonably acquire in a year.
It's especially hard because most major combat systems and components are not manufactured in Canada. That means that we are inherently limited by the foreign supply chains that will inevitably dictate the speed at which we could commission a vessel.
Just building the hull? With an all-out effort we could likely produce a frigate/destroyer hull in itself. The commissioning part is the difficulty here. 12-24 months in the modern context is an insanely short timeline. Supply issues, assuming the best case scenario?
Maybe something like the Vigilance 75 if we're talking about a potential combatant AND everything going right? It would be a stretch though, and the armament would be insanely limited without some either radical steps or insane luck and priority on our part.
Maybe that will change in the future; however, as it stands now we are insanely limited to what kind of combatants we could produce on a short-term bar an OSV strapped with containers and prayers.
Q7. Based on proposed G-LAAM specifications (1500-2000 lane meters) what percentage of the DAME assets could be transported? How many troops could be accommodated?
Oh gosh you're gonna make me do shitty math. Keep in mind that in almost zero scenarios would the total space be allocated to something like DAME. If you go by the bumper to bumper (where everything is hypothetically packed sardine-style) you could likely fit the entire DAME fleet in 2000 lane meters.
The issue is you'll never get that. You still need access, maneuvering room, and you still need space between vehicles to lash them down. You still are likely to not be able to dedicate all the space remaining to specifically one class of vehicles.
You can fit a substantial amount, not that we likely ever would even if we had a platform like GLAAM. We have a fairly good idea of where the DAME fleet will be, and they'll be fairly well distributed across the North if that is your concern. They are primarily Arctic vehicles after all, and one can't just snap up a large chunk of the fleet without sacrificing capacity elsewhere.
So the answer is that you're likely looking, when all is said and done, I can't say exact percentages, but likely over 60% at my rough guesstimath.
Q8. Is there any increased speed in high places with respect to minesweeping given what is taking place with the straits of Hormuz & the Kingston retirements?
I think the conversation is there; however, I have not heard any increased urgency from anyone? I should note that the Navy has been very experimental and forthcoming with minesweeping even with the Kingston-class retiring.
The Royal Canadian Navy’s newest minehunting system, the Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems (RMDS) are being brought into service. A containerized system provided by Kraken Robotics, RMDS consists of a 20ft TEU equipped with the REMUS AUV and SEAFOX mine disposal vehicle. SH Defence is providing its CUBE Modular container system for the project, while Kraken will be equipping it with their AquaPix synthetic aperture sonar.
Furthermore, NETE has apparently been doing a lot of work the last two years on leveraging autonomous systems for minehunting and disposal, with a particular focus on leveraging new technologies like AI, SAS, and advancements in LiDAR and Laser Imaging technologies.
Of course, the expectation is that minehunting will become a dispersed activity leveraging autonomous and containerized systems over traditional minehunting vessels. Whether this proves to be true is yet to be seen, but that is the global trend overall.
I'm not as convinced by the idea of fully autonomous minehunting with LUSV mind you; however, there are some who believe in it. Smaller systems like the Thales PathMaster are probably a more realistic pathway to an Autonomous MCM system in my opinion. There is opportunity there I think, but I am not yet convinced.
Of course, containerized minehunting systems are still a bit controversial among some, and there is the argument to be made that it is inefficient and dangerous to send something like an AOPS or future CDC to do minehunting.
That's part of the reason why I still consider a dedicated, small support vessel that can be utilized to do these kinds of tasks. Even if you move to an autonomous ecosystem, it is not inherently effective to utilize a combatant in that role, not an AOPS either.
Now the Navy's plan is to basically go commercial, leverage the containerized nature of RMDS, and merely acquire commercial Offshore Support Vessels for any Kingston-class role they deem they need in the future, and I get that. They're plentiful along the coasts, cheap, and if your only concern is a platform to carry the container, then you don't really need much more.
I am not as confident in the system to be able to do that. Hypothetically, the future Orca Replacement could have the space for at least one 20ft container and could take on the continental role in that regard. However, on the global scale, it is yet to be seen how the RCN fully takes on this challenge.
It will require more than half a dozen RMDS IMO. I would like to see more ordered if they perform well. Again, maybe utilizing small, autonomous craft like PathMaster in future mission bays/container space on platforms like the River-class or CDC is the way to go.
I myself can't say for certain. I think that is the very likely future; however, I am still skeptical of abandoning dedicated MCM craft at this time.
Q9. Any chance more MQ-9Bs are acquired or is that something that might be looked at after ioc/foc? Or a different platform to support the MQ-9Bs?
There are some talks about the future, but the focus now is on the MQ-9B introduction. Any other talks are minor and far from a plan. There is no current expectation for more to be ordered, nor another MALE platform acquired. Focus right now is entirely on the Guardian.
Perhaps if they do well and show high demand, then the government will take the steps to order more. I know the Navy, funnily enough, is very interested in their development and performance.
Of course, the acquisition of additional surveillance and strike UAS is set out in ONSF; however, this is not really referring to the same class of UAS as the Guardian. People often get it mixed up a bit.
Q10. I heard a weird rumor that CANSOFCOM was debating transforming CJIRU into an Aussie SOER style unit. Have you heard anything?
I have not, but I shall ask around for you lol. I have not heard such a thing myself.
Q11. With Canada committed to aiding in opening shipping in the Persian Gulf, is the RCN making quick weapon installations to a Halifax in the event of a deployment?
No, nor have we committed to deploying a vessel to any hypothetical Gulf operation. So there is no reason to install in the first place. It'll be a day out of hell when that happens.
Q12. Have you heard anything else in terms of a possible Cyclone replacement or duty reallocation to new unmanned platforms?
Leveraging Autonomous systems is in the discussion because it's what is available. That's limited right now, but there are discussions on what platforms like the S-100 could do in the ASW role for the Navy. We have done work also in converting Hammerhead Targets last year.
As for a replacement? That is Cabinet's choice to make. The proposal is there. People are ready to move if we decide to acquire Romeos. However, that requires the people on top to make that choice.
Q13. Does the CAF have an Arctic specialist force? If so, what size is it, battalion, regiment? If not, do we plan on creating one?
Well, we have the 5,000-strong Canadian Rangers! Never count out the Rangers. They play an important role of providing on-the-ground, local sources of surveillance and response to Canada’s Arctic security. They're integral parts of many of the communities they're in, and a wonderful, dedicated bunch.
We also have the four Arctic Response Company Groups that are oftentimes overlooked due to their small size. However, they do exist and do play a role in Canada’s Arctic security.
As part of Army Restructuring, the Canadian Army plans to further develop on the concept of an Arctic Response Force, with the Defence of Canada. The future Light Infantry Regiment of the Manoeuvre Division will have a particular mandate for supporting rapid response operations in Canada’s Arctic.
The Defence of Canada Division will further support the Manoeuvre Division with general purpose and specialist elements to address threats in the Arctic as part of this mandate.
To note also, the Rangers are undergoing their own look into their capabilities, and what equipment, training, infrastructure and mandates they might need to further contribute to Arctic security. That falls under the Canadian Rangers Enhancement Initiative.
There is not much now, but there is effort there to expand on what the Army can do more of in the Arctic. One could argue it is now one of the core areas of concern, so expect to see lots more!
Q14. Any word on when the new Army dress uniform is going to roll out?
I remember someone saying 2027? Someone in the comments can likely clarify, but I swear it's next year? Don't hold me to that.
Q15. It was sad reading your list of cut capabilities shown in the model. Can you tell me what great stuff the River has to make me feel better? Will it have ABM?
The River-class will be a top-of-the-line ASW platform combining a world-class ASW suite, CODLOG propulsion, and a versatile mission bay tailored for ASW operations. The ULTRA suite in my opinion is likely to be the best overall ASW set on planet Earth. The Type-26 will be one of, if not the best, ASW platform on planet Earth.
Add on to that that the River-class will be an amazing ABM asset as you said. We have not committed to SM-3, and it is likely we won't see the River-class in a role to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles unless in a very specific set of scenarios. More likely the Rivers will act in the sense and tracking role to land-based systems, which the SPY-7/Aegis combo will excel in.
They can do it mind you, just more likely to see ground-based systems take the intercept role. They will still be excellent anti-ballistic systems. In fact, I would argue with a few more Mk 41 cells they could easily be one of the best general-utility combatants in NATO.
A versatile, modular platform with likely the best ASW suite on Earth and one of the best AAW capabilities available on the market. Will they be the best in that role? No. However, as an all-around platform? They will be in my opinion one of the best on planet Earth, only made better as future batches roll out.
That is one of the big reasons I support them, and continue to be a champion despite the hate and general groaning. Certainly, things need to be better. There are concerns I have around costs and timelines, as many others do; however, as platforms themselves? They are absolutely among the potential best. I have zero doubt in my mind about that.
I should write a whole article on this because I could go on. (I know I say that a lot.)
Q16. Any rumours of a UCV missile boat to complement the RCDs?
There are early talks and some investigations into Medium and Large Unmanned Surface Vessels' future in the fleet mix. We ain't as far ahead as others; however, the Navy is certainly having those discussions.
They are in very early stages, though. I don't expect we will see much but speculating and casual thoughts for a while.
Q17. Are there any updates on the Underwater Environmental Awareness project?
The UEA project is now known as the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System. It has had no significant progress as of my article about it. The timelines for it are still many years out. I have high hopes they move up, but as it stands the project is not set to deliver for another decade.
Instead, the movement on this front is primarily experimentation through things like DRDC's ongoing relationship with Cellula Robotics. Even that, though, we don't really hear much about sadly. Cellula is a very secretive and quiet company. They respectfully keep to themselves.
So, sadly, there isn't much movement here.
