Let's Talk with Noah (04/08/26): Vanguard for CDC? TAPV, Lots of SAR, CAMM, CCG

Q&A

Happy Wednesday?

I'm gonna be real with you I forgot Let's Talk. I thought I did it already until I was reminded tonight. My bad! You all need to bully me every Tuesday I guess to remind me to do it. Im sorry! I need to be as tight about it as the Newsletter.

Anywho, 20 questions this week to get this out on time. To the three I missed I'll add you guys to next week's Q&A! There's one question there where I might do a bit of a mini-post? Maybe. I'm actually working on a piece for someone else this week! If you can believe that.

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. The Apr-01 Gagetown announcement includes $172M for "the establishment of new ground-based air defence infrastructure." Do you know what that refers to?

See the newsletter here for the full details. The funding itself is going to infrastructure needed as part of Enduring Phase II and III. There have been no changes to the current plans, nor anything new from this. Just some infrastructure funding, lol.

Q2. Can you explain the super hangars in a little more depth? From the description you gave in last week's Q&A, they seem like very large single points of failure.

There isn't much more to say, honestly. The approach is fairly straightforward. To support the incoming CF-35A fleet, two new facilities will be constructed at Cold Lake and Bagotville, spanning roughly 34,500 square meters and 22,000 square meters, respectively.

These facilities will serve as the centralized hubs for managing and maintaining the future fleet. Looking at them as a single point of failure is a bit harsh. I think I gave a bit of an inaccurate description calling them just hangars. It's more accurate to view them as large-scale, integrated complexes that are primarily being driven by the F-35’s unique security and maintenance requirements.

They bring together all necessary functions under one roof, including maintenance bays, mission planning facilities, training and simulator infrastructure, and the required Special Access Program Facilities (SAPF). Canada is not the only F-35 operator adopting this consolidated model, either.

While there is absolutely a case to be made for future redundancy and further infrastructure investment, which I made last week, there is a purpose to this approach. The F-35 is not a CF-18. The fifth-generation capability it provides comes with strict burdens that we collectively face as operators. That includes requiring secure facilities, climate-controlled environments for maintenance, and specialized IT infrastructure. That standard is mandated for everyone who operates the F-35.

Ultimately, the decision was made that the best approach was to consolidate everything, from training to maintenance to mission planning, into a singular complex to maximize operational efficiency and maintain the strict security and infrastructure requirements needed for a fifth-generation platform.

If we get into GCAP, then a lot of the same needs will likely also be present. That is the nature of operating modern platforms; the more complex the platform, the more complex the backend becomes. It becomes more efficient, effective, and economical to consolidate everything in one place that can act as a central point for the fleet to operate from.

Q3. Could we see SAR duties and aircraft transferred from RCAF to CCG under the new reorganization?

This gets brought up a lot, and the answer remains the same. There are no plans to do so yet, and as a concept, I don't think we'll see it anytime soon. People make the argument for and against all the time. Both from the approach that the CCG, especially with the developments this past week, is better to take on the domestic SAR role while the RCAF focuses its capabilities on other things, or maybe, if you are bold and radical, look into things like CSAR (good luck on that one...). There is also the idea that SAR takes away resources and funding from the RCAF that could be better dedicated elsewhere.

There's also the approach that the RCAF already maintains this institutional knowledge, has the resources and infrastructure in place that the CCG lacks and will take time to build, and that downloading this and the existing fleets to the CCG wouldn't actually do much in terms of improving things, especially when countered by the investments needed and the complications that would come from transferring to a civilian agency.

Personally, I don't see it as a priority, nor do I think that it is necessarily as easy as some paint it. I get the arguments, but it feels like one of those choices where the benefits are almost all highly hypothetical, and in the grand scheme, it doesn't really seem worth the effort. I don't see it myself. Sorry. I just can't.

Q4. Can you inform me what the issues are with the TAPV?

As in the fleet now or historically? Because historically, the answer is everything and anything God could throw at them. The TAPV has a history of rollovers. Pick a blame on that one: high center of gravity, crew training, whatever. It has an extensive history. The platform also has a history of breaking issues, including multiple failures at low speed and several brake fires over its lifetime. I think the ABS system still isn't functional, but one of you in the comments can correct me.

They also just have a history of just catching on fucking fire in general, so there's that. The TAPV also struggled when first being delivered because of its weight, which caused significant wear on the suspension system that had to be redesigned. Guess how they do off-road...

There is a recognition that concerns at the time were not properly taken into consideration, and that early testing of the TAPV in different conditions and environments was inadequate. Lack of a proper feedback system, shocker, continues to be an issue.

There is more, but I digress. I could go on about how the TAPV is a mismatch for the roles it intends to play, and all the historical issues it has suffered, but you get the idea. We've all heard it, and we've all gone through the song and dance.

The TAPV is a GWOT holdout that is tall, heavy, and outside the IED-laden environment of Afghanistan, lacks purpose. She is shitty as a recce platform that she was never intended to be, continues to suffer from mechanical and electrical issues, and while many of the problems above have been resolved or mitigated, the fleet still suffers.

Worst of all, we have hundreds of them with little modern purpose. They are not a platform for the modern battlespace. Time has outpaced the TAPV, and they are in desperate need of modernization, but the likes of Textron continue to be difficult partners for collaboration.

Lack of spare parts and existing contracts continue to be issues, which has left large parts of the fleet parked and awaiting long-term repairs. Everyone keeps trying to find a purpose for them because we're stuck with the fleet and need to find some way to extract value. CUAS seems like a role they're destined for, talking around maybe utilizing it as an unmanned carrier for UAS or loitering munitions.

If there is a role, then someone has proposed the TAPV for it. There exists an MLRS TAPV somewhere at NDHQ. I have not seen the concept, but someone proposed it! Gotta utilize what you have, I guess, and there's a whole bunch of TAPVs waiting for something to do.

I don't see a future for the fleet. I don't want there to be a future. I would rather they just go away, but sadly, we aren't in a place where viable replacements are available. I subscribe to utilizing LUV to cast them away; I'm sure Mark will show up and give his concept. He has a good one laying around.

Most of all? I just think it's time to give up on them. I just think we're at the point where it's better that way.

Q5. Are there any rumors or plans for a dedicated EW/Counter-C5ISRT or SIGINT airframe?

There are not; however, I continue to advocate for utilizing the Global 6500 in this role, as many of our allies like the United States, Germany, and now Korea continue to champion.

I would love to see a whole fleet of special mission Globals for things like EW, SIGINT, etc. However, that doesn't seem to be the plan right now, sadly.

Q6. You spoke of some potential delays in American approval on some projects; can you expand on this?

Sadly, I can't say much on this file, as I have not heard much more than I have said before. The issue is primarily with American companies trying to bid on Canadian projects.

There is concern that the American government is either dragging out approvals for things like Technical Assistance Agreements, which are legally required under ITAR if they want to share technical knowledge, collaborate, or provide training to foreign entities, or that the system is failing to provide approvals in a reasonable timeline due to any number of bureaucratic or administrative issues.

To clarify, I don't know where the hold-ups are exactly, just that they are a concern. The issue is that without those approvals, an American company can't submit an official bid. This has forced us in cases to extend closing dates or delay things while we wait for these companies to get their approval.

In many cases, we don't want to exclude these companies. We want them to bid; however, some recent discussions have raised the idea of moving on anyway because it's becoming more and more of an issue. It isn't limited to newer, smaller companies, either.

There is also concern that the Americans are being deliberately slow when it comes to things like FMS and such. That is a bit harder for me to confirm; however, I have heard a few people complain.

Sadly, I can't say much, as this remains one of those rumors where I just don't have many follow up details available to share. However, I have heard it enough to believe it is at least somewhat credible.

Q7. With more CH-149s being added to the fleet, has there been any talk about adding CSAR focused CH-149s? The Italians already did the groundwork with the HH-101A.

CSAR is being discussed, but in the general framework of nTACS. The AW101 could certainly be in the conversation; however, there is none specifically about it in that role that I have heard.

There are discussions, however, since the 149 line is going to be open with IMP, on if we should order a few more on top of the new three coming to the fleet. We got some 146s in the SAR role that we would maybe like to replace. Time will tell, but the option and desire are there...

Q8. Your thoughts on the return of Anti Submarine missiles?

I'm not fully sold. There's a bit of a resurgence right now, but I await to be impressed. Call me a bit skeptical on them; not against, but also I'm not exactly confident in their effectiveness in the modern environment.

Perhaps some of the future developments, like with the Brits, will spark my interest, but right now I'm just kinda meh.

Q9. Call me crazy, but I think CAMM would have been worth the integration hassle for RCD. It would have been a great option for CDC too.

Vigilance originally planned to utilize CAMM, lol. So there was one person looking at it, though that was in the CMMC with Vigilance 75. I like CAMM. I think it's a cool system, and I get that feeling. There is gonna be some hurt because it also meant losing ExLS.

Keep in mind that technically you can utilize CAMM in a regular 41 with the sleeve. It isn't like ExLS was the only way forward; however, there was also a desire from the Navy to try and keep the number of munitions low, and sadly, CAMM didn't really offer enough between ESSM and RIM-116 to justify adding it.

That's before we get into the other stuff, lol. RIM was always wanted, though. The Navy always preferred having it around, so there wasn't a whole lot of mourning in this case.

I get the sadness. However, it kinda fell into a very specific niche, and for a platform that is trying to save as much as possible, CAMM was an easy system to ditch for the Rivers. ESSM and RIM-116 fill the need just fine, and in this case, that's enough.

Q10. Any insights on shared infrastructure plans following the CG manager's report in Times-Colonist news that the shift from DFO to DND has been a “good fit”?

There are no plans. The plans are being discussed now because there was almost nothing in place beyond the fundamentals when it comes to the CCG move to the Defence Team.

Sadly, I have not heard any updates or semi-official plans for what shared infrastructure looks like. I'm sorry. When I do get info, believe me, I will share it!

Q11. With the retirement of the CC-130H(T)s, are there any plans for new tactical tanker capability or modify existing -130Js for the role, to complement the -330s?

No plans. We are going entirely Husky, although I would LOVE to get a few more Husky. People forget how versatile a platform they are, not just for air-to-air refueling but also in the transport role. Would love to see a few more in the future.

No plans for smaller tankers, though. We're out of that game for now.

Q12. What's the latest status of the Indirect Fires Modernization project? Is it running into any problems?

Nope. It's running just fine. We should see an RFP drop sometime this year, summer maybe fall? As far as I know, there have been no delays to plans.

The Army, I should note, was also in the middle of finalizing restructuring last year, so in some cases, that slowed things down. Even without that, the IFM team has been engaged at events and consulting with industry as they work to draft the RFP. People tend to forget that it takes time to draft an RFP and such, especially if it is significantly different from the RFI.

But no, as far as I know, we're still on track to see an RFP in the next few months.

Q13. Are the new CT-142Q a replacement or supplement to the existing CT-142?

They are a replacement!

Q14. Might be misremembering this, but isn't a WW2 dazzle scheme going to be standard on the Halifax-class after refits; if so, will it continue onto the Rivers?

There will be no River-class dazzle. They will be going with the Grey as seen in the recent model, at least as far as I know. However, some of the AOPS are supposed to get some new artwork soon! That will be equally as cool.

But yeah, sadly no dazzle. Maybe CDC will get some if it ever comes to existence. Not the Rivers, though, unless we do something for the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic in the far future.

Q15. To what extent are you seeing an uptick in the speed and quantity of defense-related procurements as a result of DIA so far?

Quantity as in increases to existing plans? None. However, a number of projects have been pushed ahead by the DIA, including ESCP-P, which was pushed up by like three years, Airlift Capability Project that was pushed up a few, and CMAR that was pushed up two years from plans.

There have been a number of wins the DIA have managed to pull off by identifying projects already at a place where they could go, like CMAR or projects like ESCP-P where it was recognized there was a pathway through strategic partnerships.

One thing to remember is that the DIA itself is in its infancy. It isn't a standalone agency yet, is still building its team, and still lacks the proper mandates and authorities to operate as a dedicated procurement agency. It's hard to really judge them at this stage because they're still in that stage of starting up, which takes time.

That's all coming soon, mind you; the plans are there. However, as of now, the DIA, despite having all that ongoing, has managed to get balls rolling and contracts signed, which I can respect. Credit to Fuhr and Lightbound especially, who I know have been working very hard to get things done, and really pushing for more change.

To answer generally a bit? Projects are moving, fast. Almost every project that can is seeing its timelines pushed forward. IFM, Heavy Direct Fire Modernization, Medium Cavalry, nTACS. All of them and more are getting timelines cut by sometimes two or three years. HDFM is looking at almost four or five if they get what they want!

Q16. RCN Chief of Naval Capability, RAdm Jason Armstrong, indicates there are plans to upgrade the AOPS (Starshell Winter 2026 edition). Do you have any insights?

Not that I can say are official or anything. There are talks about things like COBRA and autonomous systems, obviously. There are some talks about containerized weapons systems, but far more limited given there's still a lot of hesitation on them.

Sadly, I do not have insight here on specifics. The AOPS are great platforms, with the oversized electrical, cooling, and space, etc., capacity to do more if we desire. What that exactly looks like? I can't tell you, as I'm not privy to those plans.

Of course, there is a lot more to it, but the AOPS were designed from the outset to be upgradable and take on new payloads in the future. They have the SWAP-C margins in place to do more.

If I figure it out, I'll tell you!

Q17. For what it is/what it has become, do you think MINERVA is too large of a scope for a single project?

I think MINERVA is in a weird place. It is very large-scale, yes. I wouldn't call MINERVA a project. It really is an initiative, and in that initiative, we are likely to see many different challenges, contests, and projects rolled into its banner.

My issues with MINERVA remain the same. It doesn't feel like the Army really knows what it wants. There is a sense that perhaps they are trying to do too much at once, where it could be very easy to get stuck in the definition stage of things or try to rush through and end up messing up like GPUAS, where there wasn't enough built into that foundation, where the authorities weren't there for success.

I don't get the feeling that the Army is really at a stage where they can quickly scale up cheap, effective Group I UAS systems in the timelines, cost, or scale that they desire. It just doesn't feel like MINERVA has that sense, has a proper system in place to execute that vision properly.

The industry is ready. There are people just waiting to really tackle this. However, I worry the Army isn't at the stage where they're ready to facilitate that. I hope to be proven wrong. I hope we can execute on MINERVA, because there is some progress being made on autonomous systems. Look at the CASEVAC RFI from this week's newsletter. That's cool stuff! We just need the system in place to take stuff like that, acquire it quickly, and then scale it up four, five, ten times those numbers.

Sadly, I don't think it's there yet.

Q18. Could MSMM form a basis for a CDC? Commonality in hulls between two fleets would certainly speed things up.

That's the plan actually, lol. As far as I know, Kongsberg wants to bid a version of Vanguard for CDC; however, it will look a lot different obviously from MSMM. It would still be in the same family, though. However, a lot of that depends on CDC.

Right now, CDC has a lot of very unique, very special requirements being looked at. There is still debate ongoing for what the final platform should look like, but right now? It's looking fairly unique to us. Can Kongsberg still find a Vanguard design in their books to fit that? Maybe. I think they can.

However, the uniqueness of our requirements does make it a challenge if they can't react fast. They'll also face heavy competition from existing designs like Vigilance and Davie's Corvette proposal. The Navy would love to focus on a Canadian design if possible.

That doesn't exclude them; however, it is a disadvantage, and I don't think MSMM, given how different a scale the two platforms would be, is any sort of factor for the Navy in this regard. MSMM is a very small Vanguard concept, just like CDC would be a fairly big one. Two opposite sides of the Vanguard scale.

Q19. It appears NASA and China are trying to claim land on the moon by placing nuclear reactors. Could Canada and Japan weather the controversy and do that too?

I don't know if I'm qualified to talk about nuclear reactors on the moon; however, I know Daniel at the Canadian Strategic Missions Corporation with their LEUNR Reactor concept, based off the legendary SLOWPOKE-2 design, is certain that he can make it happen!

He's also crazy enough to pull it off, so you know what? Maybe we can, lol. The CSA seems to think they can do something with it considering they gave them a healthy bit of support to further the concept.

So you know what? Why not! We can claim New Manitoba for the Great White North. I vote for New Manitoba at least. I will also take Lesser New Brunswick as well for our future moon territory.

Q20. Has there been any talk from De Havilland of possibly making a SAR variant of the CL-515 and possibly exporting it, as allies are starting to look at seaplanes?

They've talked about it. The 415 had some very limited maritime patrol variants. I believe the Greeks still have theirs? I can't say how far along as a concept they are; only DeHavvy knows that. However, they've talked about wanting to do more with the 515.

SAR fits that well. Maritime patrol also has a role. Is there a place for a smaller, utility seaplane? I think so. Not everything needs to be a US-2 sized platform. For Canada? I don't know. For countries like, say, Indonesia, Greece, or the Philippines? I think having access to a small, rugged platform like the 515 in a more defence-focused role could have value.

It does require De Havilland, though, to step up and start getting their ball rolling. That includes on De Havilland Field. Focus on getting yourself started up, and then let's hear the pitches for more variants.

---

Remember that you can ask your questions for next week by following this link. Dont be afraid to ask multiple questions if you like!

---