Let's Talk with Noah (04/22/26): Chinook, Irving, LUV, Lots of UxS talk, Sub Rescue vessels

Q&A

Happy Wednesday

Another week, another Q&A for us. This one was very weird, so let me apologize if this isnt to the usual quality. I struggled to get through this one, but you guys asked a lot of cool questions this week, and managed to stay off a lot of the usual bloat! So I think this Let's Talk is especially good.

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. Do you know if the M203A1 currently used will be used on CMAR, or if a new 40mm system will be chosen?

The 203 is still kicking around; however, CMAR is expected to get new Colt Eagle 40mm launchers. That has been the expectation from most people for quite a while now. There won't be a competition; we'll go with what Colt offers. That's the benefit of having a mandated monopoly.

The Eagle is a good replacement. It has a side-opening, fully ambidextrous breech and a Double-Action XT trigger mechanism; the side opening allows for additional munitions incompatible with the 203. It isn't revolutionary by any means, but it is a modern option for replacing legacy underbarrel systems.

No contract has been signed as far as I know, but it is definitely in the plans.

Q2. Any news on the new clothing and equipment suite the Army has been working on for a few years? CCUE, DICE, etc.

There is steady progress on several fronts. It's been admittedly slow, but the new money coming in is pushing a few things ahead. The Caiman order from like a month or so ago is an example of such.

General rollout for a lot of the SOCEM stuff is coming next year into 2028. CCUE follows that too. New Dress is a bit more in flux. I have heard a few timelines for 2027. I can't specify a quarter or such.

DICE has progressed well, and it has done well to prep for a lot of the stuff being rolled out to the remainder of the Army, with the Caiman and the new plate carrier especially going a long way in helping develop and trial potential options.

Now, though, the focus is on CCUE, which again is rolling out next year so long as Logistik doesn't fuck up. Having seen the catalogue? It looks nice. However, I will await to hear how people react first.

Q3. Is there any talk around considering low-cost cruise missiles like CMMT? I know JSM and JASSM have been considered before, but they're monsters cost-wise.

Of course, it's been a discussion, and really, it's a discussion everyone is having these days. There isn't a specific project or mandate to investigate these kinds of solutions; Industry is trying to sell them, sure.

But almost everyone recognizes that current production of critical munitions isn't at a stage where it is sustainable in a high-intensity environment. Keeping in mind, of course, that we don't manufacture our own munitions, and that funding is limited on top of that?

Cheap, scalable munitions that might not be as capable or advanced as, say, a JSM, but still provide the long-range strike capability that is good enough? That is something that we certainly have interest in. Stuff like Rusty Dagger, WOLF, or even something like the Powered JDAM are all potential future candidates to fill that role.

However, that depends on the requirements and demands the RCAF sets out. JSM and LRASM are both coming, that ain't a question, but can they be supplemented by another munition? Most likely, yeah.

Q4. Will there be any investment towards increasing small arms ammunition production alongside the more splashy 155mm investments?

It's in the plans, but it isn't the priority. Critical munitions like 155mm take priority of investment and focus because of the high demand we're seeing and our own conflict expectations.

Keep in mind, scaling 155mm is both far more expensive and takes significant amounts of time. That makes it more imperative of a focus over other munitions. However, to make you feel better, the Feds are looking at the entire Munition Supply, including here.

What comes of those plans? I don't know. We're in the early days there of investigating and engagement, but it is in the discussions at least, and there is a desire to increase production.

Funny enough, this is one area where the Feds could accomplish some quick wins if we didn't have an extensive buyback hampering our civilian side of things.

Q5. Are there any updates on new NVGs since the competition was restarted in November?

The update is everything is delayed now, and the CAF continues to suffer a critical shortage of Night Vision Systems because someone was pissy about the requirements. That's the real story. The Canadian Army lacks a night-fighting capability because we don't have modern equipment, and we certainly don't have anywhere near the numbers we need.

Keep in mind here that Night Vision Systems Modernization is not a project, but an initiative. It includes several different systems under procurement. Night Vision Systems is part of Phase 2, but that also includes laser aiming devices and hand-held medium-range thermal imagers to complement SOPHIE.

With NVGs delayed, now everything else has been delayed so we can run things back again. All to select the same L3Harris solution we did last time, because no matter what, it was going to win. That isn't me hating everyone else, but like, come on. There is a reason we went with L3, and it isn't 'Army loves American' shit.

There should be a decision this year. I don't know the timelines for the rest of Phase 2; they're a bit in flux. Until then, we have the limited AN/PVS-14 as our best options. All because someone was upset they couldn't provide what was asked.

Q6. I believe the -147s were originally bought with the plumbing for an AAR probe. Has there been any talk of adding the probes to extend Arctic operations?

We bought our Chinooks with the Robertson Extended Range Fuel System (ERFS). That provided a significant range increase over the baseline F model, I believe around an extra 400km of baseline range. That has been enough for us.

As for the Arctic? Absolutely. It is an active conversation the nTACS team has had since the beginning. As well as a desire for more Chinooks in general, there is debate on whether the Block II Chinook with extended fuel tanks is a better option for us over a long-range platform like the MV-75.

Keep in mind, the nTACS team debated actively if we even needed a Medium Helicopter in our future. Really, the Chinook has the payload capacity and versatility we really need to operate effectively in the Arctic.

The MV-75 is cool, if you believe Bell, but it isn't quite in the class that we believe we need to respond to potential emergencies in the Arctic. It has speed, sure, but the current Chinooks get out there with enough range, and again, have that higher capacity.

The plan is to hopefully double the Chinook fleet, if not push to 40 or 50. That's what the nTACS team would like to see, at least. That is regardless of anything, so yeah, they expect it to be used up there. The issue now is too few for so much demand.

Q7. With regards to LUV, the Roshel Senator (and I assume the other options too) comes in MRAP and non-MRAP versions. Does CA want mostly one or the other, or a mix?

Okay, so... if you actually read the LUV RFI/ITQ, you'll notice that there is actually a distinction in Phase II for both Armoured and Unarmoured vehicles. The project sets out the expectations for both fleets in terms of numbers.

HOWEVER, this isn't a strict requirement. At the end of the day, LUV would like something with protection; fairly decent protection at that, if possible. The modern battlespace is full of hazards, and there is a certain minimal level of survivability that is expected of modern platforms.

If the Army wanted? Sure. Although, make note that the cost difference between base Senator variants is so minuscule that one could argue it is better financially in the long run to just go with the MRAP. Keep in mind, all Senator variants maintain some baseline level of STANAG protection. It's just up to the customer how far they take it.

The same goes for almost all the others, save add-on kits, which are a separate thing. JLTVs have the add-on kits, but again, we would likely procure those as well just from the financial and situational standpoint.

Q8. With a modernized port of Churchill, will CCG require more program icebreakers to support the extended shipping season being discussed?

No, firstly because you don't really know if you need a program for that; you gotta see the plan. Secondly, because in this case, it ain't the CCG's responsibility. Nor does Arctic Gateway expect the CCG to do so. Sure, they could request it, but right now almost everyone agrees Arctic will be supporting any such effort themselves.

If something changes, then we can discuss what's needed. However, for now, we ain't looking at using the CCG to keep Churchill open.

Q9. Are there any public press releases or sketches of the Irving shipyard expansion? I’m struggling to envision how they’ll fit 3 more hulls in production at once.

Here's a photo of three being worked on at various stages at once. Irving has been infilling part of the harbour the last year as part of their broader expansion for future naval programs. The primary thing you're looking for is the Land Level Expansion Project, which aims to create approximately 13 acres of additional yard space by dredging and infilling part of the harbour.

That land-level area, where various module blocks will be brought out of assembly to be joined together, is the main focus of expansion. Not everything is done in the Assembly Hall. There are also additional infrastructure upgrades under works, such as the new OmniLift.

Space isn't as big an issue as some believe. There are far more bottlenecks in the supply chain that delay the speed of the River-class delivery as well. Keep in mind that not all the work will be directly at Halifax, either. There's also work being done to expand Marine Fabricators' fabrication capacity, one of those supply issues.

Working on six is possible; it's just not going to be six all being constructed at the same stage, at the same time. It will be six at various stages of construction, be that in the assembly hall, being welded together, or being fitted with critical systems.

When looked at through that lens, it isn't too terribly hard to imagine, I hope!

Q10. What if Russia decided to mine the Northwest Passage for kicks? I don't think I've ever heard of any dedicated mine-hunting platforms in the RCN. Use allies?

We have the Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems, which could hypothetically be fitted onto any platform with space for a 20ft container. That is 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.

That is starting to come into service. I also can't imagine a reality where Russia is mining the NWP. There are far better targets. I would like to see more procured, as I would like to see smaller platforms like the future FASST-V have their own MCM solution that fits them.

Modern mines are scary. They're autonomous, maneuverable, have a long life, and can act as sensor nodes. They are by far one of the scariest things out there in my opinion, and placing a few in the right place can create some serious complications for Canada.

We are taking it seriously, though. The Advanced Naval Capabilities Unit considers MCM and Autonomous Systems related to them as a major priority, and the AOPS have been experimenting with how they could better assist with minehunting and countermeasures.

I don't think we gotta worry about mines up there, but if we do, we ain't going in with nothing.

Q11. Looking at possibly 35 principal surface combatants, how is the Navy thinking about larger unmanned ships? Is there a risk of existing ship orders getting slimmed down?

The Navy is curious about MUSV and LUSV; however, they're taking it slow and cautiously. While some might envision autonomous systems acting as independent combatants, that ain't really the conversation we're having.

We're looking at it more as a collaborative vessel, a partner to future surface combatants rather than a replacement in that role. The Navy is talking about it, but not in the "Let's carry a bunch of MK.70s" role. They see them helping in secondary tasks, maybe potentially as payload carriers.

So far, no numbers have been cut, and it ain't in the books. Certainly not from some new class of autonomous vessels.

Q12. The RN is currently testing the sub-hunting CAPSTONE drone. Could this system be useful for the RCN?

We're already looking at that with the new S-100, lol. We put sonobuoys on a Hammerhead target, and we ain't stopping there. The failure of the Cyclone has kinda pushed the Navy in this direction, where they need to look at potential alternatives, not to replace the Maritime Helicopter, but to supplement it.

It's still in the early stages, but a drone dropping sonobuoys isn't a novel concept. It's something we are actually testing with our new platform as we speak.

Q13. Do you think the CDCs should/will be similar to the Italian PPA, in how some ships are more capable than others in the class to reach the 20+ ship desire?

I mean, I threw that idea out with Vigilance, that one could procure a set number of 100s and then supplement with 75s. However, I don't see any indication that is a possibility. Right now, the requirements are clear for one vessel, with general uniformity in capabilities.

I get where you're coming from; I think it's an idea that has been floated privately. However, I don't see it. When we start talking about 20 or more combatants, though, I think it raises the question of whether that's a possible avenue... and that's while still getting the desired number of CDCs.

Q14. Do more niche bidders like Armatec or Terradyne have any renders for LUV? Do you think they have a chance?

Terradyne is just the regular Gurkha. Armatec is offering a modern G-Wagon. Neither has shown off any specific LUV proposal publicly, like anything LUV-specific. Armatec barely talks to people in the first place.

Truthfully, I can't see either pulling ahead of the Senator, JLTV, Sabre, or GM here. Like, the roster among those four is so stacked that it would be hard for either to pull out. The Gurkha is another 550-based vehicle like the Senator, but with a worse supply chain, less developed, and while combat-proven in Ukraine as well, not to the same scale. I see no one demanding a modern G-Wagon either.

I like Terradyne. The Gurkha has done great in Ukraine. However, it feels like it's in a competition offering at a level above it at this stage. You feel?

Q15. Are there any plans in the works to procure additional shotguns for the Army?

Not that I know of.

Q16. With the advent of CCAs, could 2-person fighters with a new kind of weapons officer come back into vogue?

Possibly. It's a conversation we're inevitably going to have with Sixth-Gen aircraft, especially as CCAs become a staple part of many air forces. A bit of a simple rule: if we can get away with it, we will. That being, if we don't need an extra pilot? Then we won't see one.

It's possible that developments in machine learning and autonomy get to a stage where only one operator is required to coordinate CCAs. I don't think we're near the stage of true automation, mind you; however, we can get to a stage of functional autonomy, where CCAs operate nearly independently of intervention, only requiring the bare minimum of intervention.

I do think that, no matter what, we will see two-seat configurations with a focus on a dedicated operator for CCAs. However, whether it becomes the standard in the long run? I don't think so.

As technology progresses, and we get better with CCAs, the workload required to operate them in MUM-T will decrease as well, and I believe we will reach the tipping point where only a single pilot is required the vast majority of the time.

Q17. Are there any projects to improve the physical security of bases?

Well, we do have the new base security trade coming to the RCAF, as well as the CUAS Initiative. The primary focus on physical security is focused on perimeter fencing, access control, and threat-detection software.

Trenton, as an example, is getting new anti-ram vehicle barricades, traffic control spikes, and camera systems. I believe Comox is the same. The RMC is getting new fencing infrastructure and anti-ram barriers.

Gagetown's recent funding had security infrastructure built into it. Cold Lake and Bagotville need these kinds of security upgrades, including new fencing and camera systems, as part of the suite of security upgrades for hosting the F-35.

NORAD Northern Basing Infrastructure has security infrastructure built into it. Honestly, most bases are undergoing or, as part of master plans, are looking at renewing physical security infrastructure. New cameras, fences, new gates, new digital infrastructure, and security software for tracking and identification.

Lots of these ain't projects as we know them. They are collections of infrastructure investments that just so happen to align with each other, which isn't very surprising when you consider the security needs for bases are fairly uniform, and most are undergoing fairly large renewals after years of underinvestment.

Q18. You've mentioned that a dedicated sub rescue platform for the RCN is a long way out. Could we lean on the capabilities of our allies in the med-term? How?

We can do sub rescue now. The AOPS participate in exercises regularly to be able to perform it. Yes, it does utilize the existing NATO Submarine Rescue System like others; however, we regularly train to handle a potential submarine rescue.

AOPS ain't tenders, though, and they can do the role if needed, but they ain't optimized for the role. They can take on some containers to do it, but a dedicated vessel with dedicated decompression chambers and extensive medical facilities is always better.

Keep in mind also, we're often talking about tendering submarines, which requires a vessel capable of resupplying and possibly taking part in forward repair in emergencies as well.

That could honestly even be done by something like a JSS or AMB, especially if we have 4/2. They have the facilities and space needed. However, most countries opt for a dedicated vessel to better tailor its capabilities specifically to a submarine's needs.

We will see.

Q19. With the expansion of the training fleet, where could we see these be based day to day? It would be nice to see one stationed around a major reserve like York.

The plan is to base them at Naval Reserve units across the country. That gives reserves a vessel they can train and work on, provides a public-facing vessel for the average person to engage with, especially the youth, and provides the RCN a fleet of vessels that can support security and intelligence operations on the coasts and, more importantly, in the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes.

So, you're in luck! You'll be able to see these vessels quite extensively across the country if all goes to plan.

Q20. What will happen to the old A310s that the RCAF is retiring? Do we sell them for scrap, or would someone else have some use for them?

Scrapyard.

Q21. Any news on the status of the FFLIT program, e.g., possible candidates, etc.?

It's progressing fine. A Requirements Development Contract is set to be signed this year. An execution award is set for the 2029/2030 period with FOC in, I believe, around 2033/2034. A good thing to remember here is CAE.

Like FACT, CAE has significant sway in whatever trainer platform we decide on. Right now, the big two are the KAI/Lockheed TF-50 and the Leonardo M346. There isn't as much hype for the T-7 Red Hawk.

The M346 is interesting because CAE already has experience with the International Flight Training School (IFTS) operating them. It presents an opportunity to align with the NATO Flight Training Europe initiative (NFTE) we joined last year, as well as align NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC) to a common platform.

The TF-50 is interesting because of the alignment with the F-35, both being Lockheed products in a sense. There are also some discussions on building them here, though I stress that is hearsay, not a rumor. There is also the fighter aspect, but that isn't at play here.

Those are the two predominantly discussed platforms, with a lot of leaning on the M346 for the benefits of alignment and the ease of CAE, though both are excellent trainers in their own rights. We can't go wrong with either.

Q22. What is the potential for cargo UAVs to enhance or modify traditional replenishment at sea operations? Drone swarms for rapid tactical operations?

I mean, I think they're neat, lol. The RCN sees value in them as a potential tool for resupply. The future JSS UAS will be focused on resupply and cargo transport, so there is absolutely a desire to explore these as an option.

The thing with cargo UAS really depends on what you're discussing. Heavy UAS like Envoy for transporting limited goods and parts across vessels? Sure. That can work. That is fine. However, when you start to get into things like converted helicopters, such as the H145M-based Aerial Logistics Connector? That is a bit less certain.

I don't think those are there quite yet, both in their autonomous capabilities or in our skillset to operate them at scale. That is a significant leap from the platforms we are trialing these days, and while very cool, they are still experimental platforms. They ain't quite at the stage yet where we can have a serious discussion on them, in my opinion.

But smaller stuff like Envoy? Sure. Absolutely, let's have those talks on what they can do! The Navy is!

---

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

---