Let's Talk with Noah (03/31/26): Orca Replacement Official Name, KM-SAM, Future Fleet Plans, Optics, Lots of Yes & No
Q&A
Happy Tuesday!
It's another Let's Talk a lot late today! Of coirse looking at all the news I'm sure you understand. This week is admittedly a bit shorter than usual. I always feel bad about that. I like these being 3500+ words on average, but this week had a lot of direct yes or no questions.
That isn't bad. I don't wanna discourage you for asking them. It's just that sometimes they take up the Q&A a lot so it leaves is a bit shorter. I'm sure well be back to our usual length next 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. Given all the talk of new ships and possible future additions, does the navy plan on publishing a future fleet document, like Navy 2050 or something?
Yes, it is actively in the works right now and should be finalized this year. I can't remember the end date, 2035 or 2040. Going beyond that makes little sense these days. Things can shift so rapidly, and so many unknowns are at play, that going out beyond a decade for such a strategy makes little sense.
The navy has been working on this for quite a while. Originally, it should have been out there around now, though it got a bit delayed. It builds off the foundation that the 2024 Trident: Royal Canadian Navy Strategic Doctrine built, AFAIK. You won't find that one publicly; believe me, I have tried. As to what's in the plan itself? I can't say myself, but I am excited for it! The navy has been working very hard to get this right from what I hear, and went out of their way to engage with allies and experts to find the right path.
So, while I don't know what's in it, I do have high hopes. I expect we will see CDC and more JSS. There are two predictions at least, lol.
Q2. Outside of PRSM, is there any other long-range missile system that is on the army's wish list? E.g., Tomahawk via Typhon or joining programs like the Anglo-German one.
As of now, there are no plans to expand the Army Long-Range Fires capability outside PRSM, unless you count some flimsy Chunmoo rumors. PRSM does what we want it to do 99% of the time.
Systems like Typhon are cool, but we gotta ask why? PRSM does what we want from an Arctic standpoint. Transporting Typhon across Europe is impractical for us given our limited airlift capacity in any sort of real conflict. Even if you argue to keep such a system in Europe, is it really worth our investment and dedication if our allies are already looking to fill that role?
Especially when it comes to Europe, we have to know what things to leave to our continental allies and what capabilities Canada should focus on to be a worthwhile contributor. We can't do everything, nor should we.
PRSM provides that perfect balance of a small, far more survivable (compared to the setup of Typhon), highly transportable package that does exactly what the Army wants; that is, a credible A2/AD in the Arctic and the ability to strike high-value targets at a distance.
A big, bulky, MK.70-focused system could have potential, but its role for the army as a strike platform is inherently limited by a lack of reasoning, limited mobility, and the fact there are just so many better investments at this time.
Q3. Is Canada considering the Korean AA system? I've heard the M-SAM is better than Patriot and cheaper, and it's in high demand by Middle Eastern countries.
Better than Patriot is a stretch. Let's not get that far. KM-SAM has shown remarkable success the last few weeks in the Gulf, and by all accounts, it has done exceptionally well. I commend the Koreans on it. However, hard data at this time is still very hard to come by.
We don't have a lot of available data to reliably compare it to other systems in places like Ukraine. That makes it hard for me to say it's better than other systems. Success is good, but not a universal tool of comparison.
As for our own requirements? There has never been a bid, and their chances of success are limited. Any GBAD system we acquire will have to both be able to plug into the NORAD ecosystem and have a reliable supply chain where we expect to see them used most, mainly Europe.
KM-SAM is exclusively used outside Korea in the Gulf States. It lacks the supply chain that other systems like IRIS, NASAMS, and CAMM have available. It lacks interoperability with many of our allies.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but the existing Eurosystems, for example, are proven, in greater service among our allies, and have existing supply chains in the places we expect our GBAD systems to be. It puts major disadvantages on KM-SAM that it would be unlikely to break through.
Q4. Are there any projects/plans/ideas centered on the acquisition of long-range suicide drones similar to the Shahed/LUCAS?
That falls under the MINERVA initiative. Right now, we don't have a lot of details on the exact systems desired. There is a mandate in ONSF to explore the acquisition of strike drones.
The MINERVA Initiative plans to explore the idea in more detail. Does that look like a system like LUCAS? Maybe, but right now it's far too early to tell.
Right now, though, it's a bit too early to judge what exactly we're looking to acquire in that regard, but the mandate and the system are in place to investigate at the least. I'm still not fully confident that MINERVA will deliver as expected, but they are the closest right now to that concept.
Q5. It seemed strange that CMAR was announced without details on the optics. I hope we don’t continue with the current ELCAN C79 optics.
There are new optics, and they will be coming with the new rifles. I just don't know exactly what they are, and while I could guess, I would rather wait until I could confirm before throwing names and such out there.
I'm honestly not surprised the new optics weren't announced. The focus was on the rifles themselves, not anything else. We can't even get a proper breakdown of the spending. I would have been shocked if they went into enough detail to speak on the optics.
Sometimes at these big announcements, not everything is discussed in detail. Optics are one thing I would be surprised to see unless they specifically wanted to highlight them for some reason. These announcements are primarily for the public, and it's sadly not the public precedent to demand extensive details on rifle optics.
I would have loved for them to highlight things like the optics, as it would go a long way to show how extensive CMAR will be as an upgrade over the C7/C8. However, I'm also not surprised they skipped it.
Q6. With all this new money being spent on military and defence, is any of it going towards any of the intelligence services like CSIS? Is there any talk of expanding?
Yes. Both CSIS and the RCMP saw fairly decent increases as part of Budget 2025, which committed an additional $805 million over five years for CSIS, the Coast Guard, and PSPC to enhance security capabilities, and the 2024–25 Main Estimates saw a near 7% increase in funding year-over-year for CSIS.
The RCMP has seen even more significant funding, with Budget 2025 setting out $1.8 billion over four years to support RCMP expansion, including hiring an additional 1,000 RCMP personnel (maybe), doubling the RCMP Cadet Training Allowance, and supporting the expansion of programs targeting organized crime, cross-border smuggling, and domestic security threats.
Overall, the RCMP saw a 7.6% increase year-over-year, not as significant as one might expect, but still a substantial figure. There has also been funding put into other areas such as FINTRAC. Funny enough, the CBSA, despite attention over the last year, has actually seen a net decrease, lol.
Overall, while there is a focus on defence, the other arms of Canada’s intelligence ecosystems have seen fair but still notable funding increases. They aren't as significant as what we see on defence, but still represent a net increase across the board in terms of funding.
Q7. Noah, your thoughts on which sub should win the CPSP and why?
Soon.
Q8. You mentioned light frigates. Is the navy looking at building a fleet of destroyers, corvettes, and frigates? What other types of ships/subs are they looking at?
No, by light frigates I'm talking about CDC, because while I understand the naming choice and why they're called corvettes, they're now firmly in the camp of being light frigates to me for all intents and purposes.
There are no plans for any other combatants but CDC and the Rivers. We will get more of an idea of the future fleet mix when the plan comes out later this year.
As of now, the primary things I would be looking out for are the Orca Replacement (now known as FASST-V - Future At Sea Sovereignty and Training Vessel), the potential for more JSS, and the fabled Polar-class vessels the navy has been discussing.
There is some talk of potential submarine tenders starting to make the rounds, but there is also debate on whether the JSS could fill that role. You won't see movement there until the contract is signed. The focus there is on the subs.
Other than those? There isn't really anything else on the books, and even the Polar-class vessel is more of a concept than a legitimate project at this time.
Q9. C9A3, real? Any word on what's up with that?
It is real; however, information on it is limited. I can't speak much on it, unfortunately. It is in a very early stage of discussion, though.
Q10. Are there any updates on the rumor that RCN clearance divers are taking over the ship boarding role from NTOG?
Unfortunately, not since we last talked about them, sorry. I have tried to ask around, but there's nothing new on that front.
Q11. It appears the River class has changed to a darker shade of grey in the models. I like it. Hoping it's not just the image quality making the model look darker?
I am told that it is accurate to what they will look like in service, at least for now. I also quite like it myself, but I am a sucker for greys, as you may know. :)
Q12. Has there been any talk of potentially replacing one of the Phalanx on JSS with a SeaRAM?
Not that I have heard much on. A few people like the idea and suggest going up to the MK.49 when talking around, but I have not heard it as an official stance. There are some that like it, though.
Q13. What are your thoughts on the Raytheon Deepfires, and the potential for complementing HIMARS for Canadian use?
Inherently, any autonomous systems, including ones like many of the MADL proposals, are things I can appreciate but also want to be cautious of. There is a lot of potential in autonomous systems, especially autonomous conversions, which the folks at Rheinmetall Canada with the Path A-Kit do really well.
There could be potential, but my concerns still exist with any autonomous platform, such as its resilience to Electronic Warfare (EW) and datalink disruption, the reliability of its sensors and systems in places like the Arctic (where we would like a HIMARS-like system to operate), its maintenance and personnel requirements (you might remove a driver, but that doesn't mean you don't add new people to the loop), and, of course, the cost vs. capability of an autonomous system over just getting a regular HIMARS.
All of these are solvable, but they're all questions I'm asking before going all-in on a HIMARS supplement. I can see the value, but I have notable concerns that make me question if the investment for us is worth it over just sticking with a crewed platform.
Q14. Are there any plans for hardened hangars for the fighter replacements?
There are no plans for separate hardened shelters. The plans right now remain focused on the future Super Hangars. These are designed to consolidate all the functions of the future fleet, including daily flight operations, multi-level maintenance, mission planning, and high-security IT infrastructure, into a single integrated footprint.
The Cold Lake facility will be the larger of the two, spanning roughly 34,500 square metres, while the Bagotville site is planned to cover 22,000 square metres. As of now, there are no plans for traditional hardened shelters, something I ranted about in my CUAS post on Sunday.
Q15. Has or will the US/Israeli war with Iran impact any munitions deliveries to the CAF?
As of now? Not that I have heard. It is entirely possible that we could see delays to certain deliveries depending on how the conflict plays out. That is always a vulnerability when relying on a partner to supply munitions for you.
As of now, it has not happened, and it isn't something that I am hearing has been conveyed to us. Funnily, some of the larger packages, such as last year's strike munitions package, have not been signed yet. That is an example of a package I could see suffering from delays to fill in potential shortages or resupply efforts on the American side.
But as of now? It has not happened.
Q16. Will the acquisition of additional PCT for the RCN soon be a funded program, or is it still a thought exercise?
The Orca replacement is now known as FASST-V (Future At Sea Sovereignty and Training Vessel) and is on the books but remains unfunded, as far as I know. The navy is confident they can get approval and move it through the procurement system quickly.
That is the hope, at least. It is a fairly inexpensive, simple project, all things considered. The navy feels fairly certain they can move on it this year, even along with CDC.
Time will tell.
Q17. I asked this myself to no avail, but does joining NATO STARLIFT mean we're launching hypersonic missiles, energy weapons, or other weaponry by 2027 for allies?
No. The focus of STARLIFT is on developing a resilient and cost-effective network of launch sites to enable NATO states reliable access to space in the event of a conflict. The focus is on launching satellites and similar space-based payloads, not missiles or other such weaponry.
