Let's Talk with Noah (04/14/26): Graving Docks, Names, Arctic Mobile Bases, Phoenix, Trains

Q&A

Happy Tuesday

It's a long week, so that meams a late night Q&A. I gotta stop scheduling meetings for Monday amd Tuesday honestly. It always messes me up, especially when I know I have the Q&A but tell myself I can just finish it quick. It is never quick. When will I learn.

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. Is there a way to create a glossary of acronyms on the website? It can be difficult to understand their meanings when referenced in newsletters and discussions.

As some of you may have noticed, we now have a new resources section specifically for things like glossaries (and other material) that I think can help expand people's knowledge and help support their journey in the defence space.

Right now, this does not include a project page; however, I do plan to add one shortly! We do have a glossary for general terms and phrases for things you might encounter on the site. Check it out because there's already a bunch of cool stuff!

Q2. Does Canada need more major graving drydocks? With the ships coming, it seems like one on each coast is a significant bottleneck for major maintenance.

That depends, honestly. Are you speaking about government infrastructure, or are we talking in general? Because truthfully, we have a lot of maritime infrastructure that is currently underutilized that could definitely do more with a proper plan and such in place.

Like Ontario Shipyard has multiple Seawaymax graving docks in Port Weller and Thunder Bay. Groupe Ocean has the dock at Verreault Shipyard. Point Hope has their graving dock expansion plans.

Newport and the St. John Dockyard have their graving dock as well, which I just remembered while writing this. Like we do have facilities, many of which are underutilized or outright empty, like Thunder Bay.

That's just three off the top of my head. The assets are there; scattered about, sure, but they do exist. Even with the losses of places like Collingwood and Irving in St. John, we still have several shipyards with significant graving and dry dock infrastructure that only needs the proper investment or work to bring them up to a modern standard.

I've actually made a note to engage with a lot of the medium and small yards around the last few months, and it has been fascinating to hear not just the infrastructure they have available, but also what their wider plans are.

The issue, as always, is that the commercial infrastructure exists but has had to deal with several decades of drought in business that has restricted yards' abilities to maintain existing assets, let alone modernize infrastructure.

That sucks especially because a lot of this infrastructure exists in the medium and small yards that aren't really seeing the glut of work that the Big Three are. Some like Groupe are doing well, while others like Ontario could certainly do more, a lot more than they're doing. It does require, however, that there be a strategy in place to support infrastructure across the country.

Federally-owned? There are certainly bottlenecks, but that's why we have the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which isn't just about shipbuilding but building up Canada's maritime economy and infrastructure, including commercial players that can play a bigger role.

Of course, there is potential opportunity to expand on maritime infrastructure at places like the new Halifax Gate facility. That is a prime example of acquiring new real estate that offers a lot of potential expansion room, which is exactly why they bought it AFAIK.

So yes, we need to take better care of infrastructure, but the good news is a lot of it exists already, just underutilized. The other good thing is that the federal government is actively acquiring new real estate like Halifax Gate to provide new space for expansion as we solidify the future fleet mix.

Q3. Blue sky thinking. Assume 12-15 Rivers, 10-16 CDCs, 12 CPSPs, 3 JSSs, 2 Glamms, 2 Sub Tenders. What else might we need/like? Portuguese drone carrier?

I think that would be our cap. Add a fourth JSS, and you get where the Navy wants to be in reality! With this fleet mix, I think we're mostly maxed out in terms of space and infrastructure. That is especially true if you add on sub tenders (which is likely to be more of a JSS role) and the FASST-V fleet.

Honestly, with this fleet mix, I can't imagine what we might be missing. Save for a proper OPV or M/LUSV or such, which I don't count here, I can't think of what else we might add here. A drone carrier isn't really in our books. Something like GLAAM already performs that role.

Unless it could support larger aircraft like a SkyGuardian? Then that role is already fulfilled by the rest of the fleet, and while the Navy seems to have an interest in their own MALE UAS, I don't think they would add a carrier to all of this, not unless we talk like the 2060s or 70s.

There is always a limit somewhere, and this fleet feels like probably the max we could support in the medium and near-long terms.

Q4. Do you know if the upcoming aircraft, like P-8 and F-35 (and JAS39 if we get it), will be getting a hundred designation like all service aircraft before?

Depends. Most, like the Kingfisher, Husky, new trainers, etc., have a hundred designation, though it isn't always a choice. There are some that they have decided not to follow the usual convention for. The P8 is being designated as the CP8A. I have not heard a proper hundred designation being given to them. Guardians will be designated as the CQ9B.

It really depends, and as I know it, the practice is not necessarily dead but not strict in its regards. It is case-by-case as far as I know, but I have never actually asked anyone about the status of it. I'll ask around for something official.

Q5. Rumours are that the CDC will be at least 20 now. With the RCD and CPSP, this will be a major fleet. So many ways to use them! Thoughts?

The number is higher than 20 now as a maximum last I heard, but that feels more like keeping things open in case a smaller platform is mandated. The minimum requirement is 12, and Vice-Admiral Topshee has made it clear there's a desire for at least 35 surface combatants. That's where we get the 20 CDCs and 15 Rivers.

However, submarines can change that calculation, especially with a full 12 order. The main idea now is for 12. That is what all the slides and documentation are focused on. If we can get more? Great, but it seems that 12 is the magic number.

Of course, there is still a lot up in the air about CPSP, so that can still shift. They want an RFI out this year, though, so we might not be waiting too long potentially for some concrete numbers.

Twenty Minifaxes would be a monumental task to achieve, both in terms of infrastructure and personnel to support them. Likely, we wouldn't see the last delivered until the 2050s. It would also make us one of the largest in NATO by the number of surface combatants, eclipsing the current plans that others like the UK and France have set out so far.

We would be starting to talk about blue-water status with the navy that the RCN is proposing right now, with one of the largest surface and undersea fleets in NATO. It is a tall order for sure once you add four JSSs, two AMBs, and an entire swarm of FASST-Vs.

It's actually kind of insane to think about.

Q6. Wondering if the government is missing out by not ordering a batch of DHC-515s for national firefighting and giving the provinces the opportunity to buy in at a bulk price?

Let's let De Havilland get themselves situated first. De Havilland Field is a bunch of grass right now. There is time to wait, though I agree that we should have a long discussion about firefighting infrastructure, including the best methods to support the national waterbomber fleet.

Bulk purchases between provinces, though, would certainly help if we could coordinate everyone together. A federal fleet? I am open to it, but I would want to see the plan, especially with all the consolidation going on right now.

Priority should be on supporting the provinces in their own expansions and, if we're serious about De Havilland as a national priority in providing waterbombers, how we can support them in getting De Havilland Field up and running, because that right now is the big issue.

Q7. While the favorite for an RCAF AEW&C seems to be Saab's GlobalEye, what are your thoughts on L3's Phoenix?

I think Phoenix offers a very interesting option for Canada's AEW&C requirements. The EL/W-2085 has shown itself to be very capable in Europe, and the Italians seem to really love it. The Koreans have gotten on board with the 6500-based Phoenix, for which the lack of a working model has been a point of concern.

L3 is promising a few advantages over GlobalEye at this time, though air-to-air refueling might be a point where that disappears. Phoenix also comes with native 360-degree coverage, which Saab did offer to the Koreans, but that is also only a hypothetical.

Both Phoenix and GlobalEye matched up capability-wise according to the Korean assessments. Capability-wise, one has to remember that the platform (both utilizing the 6500) provides a natural bottleneck to the capabilities the radar will provide. (SWAP is important, kids!)

Overall, it's an interesting option, one I'm curious to see more on, and to see how they do with the Koreans. GlobalEye works. It is available. We know it exists and is flying. That is a major advantage just on that front. Add on the feds and RCAF working with Bombardier to try and get native air-to-air refueling? It makes things harder for Phoenix.

Q8. Has the Fighter Review been delayed, or was it always meant to take this long? I understand the need to be thorough, but a decision kind of needs to be made.

A decision only needs to be made when we decide it. The federal government has shown they're willing to fund additional F-35s; indeed, almost any choice will include more F-35s. Sixteen isn't properly enough for a single squadron. So, there is no rush with that in mind.

The review was always ad hoc, as is. The federal government did not go in with a proper program or framework to follow. They went as things developed. The decision right now, as I know it, is to see how USMCA negotiations go before making the final call on what to do.

Both camps have their supporters. Gripen has more, but GCAP is also at play now, and that does change some thinking. That has also been a factor, even if GCAP is considered separate from the Fighter Review.

There are no timelines. There is no methodology. They have lots of time to wait, and waiting is what they have decided they want to do to see how the situation develops. Both Lockheed and Saab have presented their options and offers. That isn't a factor. That, or we could just forgive Boeing and give SOS Fuhr his Super Hornets.

Q9. Does the Canadian Armed Forces have any sort of standing contracts with CN and CPKC for heavy transport? Does the CAF own heavy-duty rail vehicles like the DOD?

The DND does not own any significant rail infrastructure. The primary system relies on contracted, long-term commercial agreements with rail operators. Another fun fact is that rail operations are not treated as an essential service under the Canadian government.

This means that activities related to national defence, such as transporting equipment, are not considered a priority, and the DND in peacetime is considered just another commercial client.

We also have limited methods to protect existing lines from being left to rot or being ripped up. Because our rail companies couldn't give a fuck about our collective security, and the feds seem unwilling to move, Canada's rail system continues to be ripped up and left to fall apart in the name of company profits.

So, despite it being a vital part of our national security infrastructure, and in spite of the growing risk of adversarial sabotage, the federal government has limited authority to stop this unless they pay an extortion fee to the rail companies to either keep lines running or purchase them themselves. Lord forbid we have a banking system.

But hey, it's okay. When will we ever need it, right? I would not be nice to the rail companies. That's all I'll say.

Q10. Has there been any discussion around expanding Irving for a parallel production line at an alternative site or further into the harbour than planned?

The plan is focused on expanding the current Halifax facility. That is where the priority is. When complete, Irving hopes to have the capacity to work on at least six River-class vessels at various stages of construction, on top of potentially doing work on the CDC.

That is the focus right now. That is where the current efforts are. There are no existing talks that I have heard from Irving on a second production site. The focus remains on the existing Halifax yard.

Q11. Given what AUS is doing, could the CDC role be filled by the Mogami, or would that be a good idea? Given size increases/removing max length.

Mogami is likely too big. The 104m requirement might be dead, but I doubt we go beyond 120m. I also want to note that the RCN is very supportive of funding a Canadian design, especially given the Navy has very specific demands when it comes to endurance and ice-strengthening.

The Navy has a vision in mind, and it is acknowledged that this vision might require a fairly unique vessel. It is likely, for example, that the CDC completely does away with a proper flight deck and focuses on mission space. That is still in the cards.

Right now, things are still up in the air, though given what we know, I don't think Mogami is a fit for what the Navy wants. It's a bit too big, doesn't support the Navy's industrial ambition, and doesn't fit the design requirements they hope for.

Q12. Japan announced Canada will have observer status with GCAP. I find that odd considering Japan wants to protect its work share. Your thoughts?

I wrote about it in detail here! I should note that the Japanese desire has been related to protecting their industrial share and ensuring that Japanese industry can benefit from a multinational procurement to prop up the aerospace sector.

Under this proposed observer status, we aren't immediately guaranteed anything. That includes industrial benefits. That might come later, and Canadian industry can likely benefit from being part of the potential pool; however, as of now, with no details, the fact is we don't touch the workshare agreement at all, so they really don't give a damn.

We aren't touching that stuff. Anything regarding that would come later.

Q13. What sort of armament for the Orca replacement is expected? 25/30mm with mounted .50 cal/7.62 guns? Or similar to the current Orca set up and mounted as needed?

It will be similar to the Orca as far as I know. I don't expect we will see a 25/30mm gun. The plan for FASST-V is likely to stick closer to Orca-sized (if not a bit bigger) than Kingston-sized.

They are primarily training vessels with a secondary security role. Remember that. These will be commissioned vessels; however, their primary role will remain as training craft.

Although I should note that FASST-V is still a concept, even if they want an RFI out this year. We don't have a lot of info on what the vessels will fully look like. However, I expect a .50 cal or such is the likely falling point for the most we will see.

Q14. I may have missed it, but are there any plans to better survey/map the waterways and seabed in the Arctic Archipelago?

Yes. That is part of the active conversation right now: how can the future RCN better support surveying the waterways of the Arctic. Assets like the future Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System, for example, will play a dual-use role in both Arctic surveillance and surveying.

That's also why we're having talks about moving the Canadian Hydrographic Service under the DND, if not the Navy itself, like many of our allies where hydrographic surveying is under the naval banner.

Only about 10-15% of our Arctic waters are surveyed to modern standards. There is a significant risk, especially as the Arctic opens up, of increased traffic running the gauntlet of exploring deeper into many of the inadequately or uncharted areas of the Archipelago.

That doesn't just include things like cargo vessels, but also cruise ships, locals, and adventurers. As the Arctic opens up to more traffic, the increased demand for SAR, or worse, HADR, presents a challenge if we don't have the proper charts and knowledge to safely navigate our own Arctic.

That is besides the fact that we want situational awareness of our Arctic, especially as it relates to knowing where our adversaries might be or might go. That makes surveying extra important.

So yes, the Navy takes great concern about this, and with the CCG now under the Defence Team, there is renewed discussion of how the DND can support surveying in the future as new assets and platforms come online.

Q15. CNN report showed Divergent in CA building cruise missiles with 3D printing. Security reasons prevent them from confirming usage. Any further insight? Amazing!

Unfortunately, I don't know Divergent! I'm sorry! I am unfamiliar with their work, so I can't really comment on what they're doing. I'll definitely check them out, though!

Q16. Has there been any news about resolving the issues with the Spike ATGMs and possibly expanding orders?

The issues were primarily software-related and had been resolved last I talked. There aren't any talks about expanding the order. We do have an ATGM project on the books since 2017 that's supposed to hopefully see movement this year.

The funny thing is that the UOR actually makes it harder for SPIKE, lol. Gotta prove there were no biases or such in the procurement process. Sadly, in the name of fairness and transparency, there is always a bit of a heavy hand over any discussions of UOR expansion, even if it makes sense.

Q17. How many Halifax frigates are capable of going to sea right away if we had to (with and without the real constraint of crew availability)?

About 4-6 in the worst case. Right now, I believe Ottawa, Ville de Québec, St. John's, Regina, and Charlottetown are available. Charlottetown is currently on the HORIZON/NEON excursion. Vancouver just entered maintenance. Calgary should be ready to go very shortly as well. I don't know if the timelines are still the same for her.

This reminds me, though, to check up on everyone's status, lol, but hypothetically you're looking at 4-6 if it's an all-hands-on-deck kind of scenario.

Q18. Are there any plans to expand CAF/CCG's fleet of Fat Trucks, Arktos, or Sherps?

Not really. It is taken on a needs basis. There are no real plans besides what needs might pop up. There are increasingly efforts to fill gaps in the fleet through more COTS acquisitions, which is where we're seeing more of these kinds of systems acquired.

Are there official plans? No. Nor are there really any projects that they fit into.

Q19. What’s Canada’s drone production capacity like, and has the government announced any plans to support an expansion of this?

We have several initiatives. The chief among them is Minerva, which I wrote about here. There have also been recent IDEAS challenges like Drone Surge that aimed to investigate how Canada could support scalable Group I UAS production.

The initiatives are there on paper; however, they aren't perfect. I wrote on Minerva again. My thoughts have not changed. I need to see results, and see that the system exists to support the ambition. Right now? I don't see that. I don't see the things that we need to be successful in the long term.

That includes the authorities, sure, but also the frameworks in place with people like Transport Canada, the right procurement vehicles, and a system to verify and scale UAS development across the CAF. All of which are currently missing.

Nor do I see effort beyond the Group I UAS. I appreciate starting somewhere, and understand the desire to go for the basic, smallest subset at the onset; however, compare this with the RCN's ability to scale UAS development and the push for experimentation. They have the across-the-board system, building the capacity through the Advanced Naval Capabilities Unit, and the projects in place to acquire systems.

For the Army? I'm just not seeing a 2026 system. I see a 2024 one.

Q20. Will the CC-330s be capable of buddy refueling each other?

Yes, the A330 MRTT (on which the CC330 is based) is fully capable of buddy refueling. You can actually find videos of it if you search!

Q21. Hoping one day you could do an in-depth story on the Canadian concept for a series of Polar Multifunctional Security Vessels (PMSVs) and related support assets.

Whenever I get good info on it outside CNR, I will!

Q22. Four of our old steamers used ASROC. Has there been discussion regarding use of vertical launch ASROC on the RCDs given the Cyclone serviceability issues?

I have not heard of it. I have spoken before on this, and I have yet to ever hear of a desire from the RCN. Maybe in the future, but right now that isn't on the cards. Instead, we put sonobuoys on the Hammerhead, which is infinitely cooler.

Q23. Now that Arctic Mobile Base is on the books, is there any talk of establishing an Arctic amphibious ready group, with armored ATTC, mortar, MSHORAD. Brigade size?

There is no talk among the Army of establishing an amphibious capability. There is obviously a need for an Arctic-capable rapid response capability. That is currently part of the plans and is being developed as part of the Army's ongoing modernization.

The Manoeuvre Division, for example, will have both a Combat Aviation Brigade and Light Infantry Regiment to support rapid response to situations globally, including our Arctic. Then there is the Defence of Canada Division that is still up in the air capability-wise.

However, amphibious discussions aren't on those cards. Neither service is changing plans to accommodate each other here. If the Army chooses to pursue such a capability, it will come later.

Keep in mind also that the AMB is unfunded, has no timeline, and is not being developed with supporting the Army in mind. Sure, it will likely have this capability, and if it comes to pass that they exist? I'm sure the Army will work on developing the concept.

It's far too early for these kinds of discussions. However, that does not mean they will never happen.

Q24. With GLAAM gaining life, will nTACS now look at a marine-capable airframe solution?

No. That will come separately. See above as well for the whole unfunded disclaimer. nTACS will be delivering before you see any AMB. Certainly it isnt on thr nTACS teams radar.

---

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

---