Let's Talk with Noah (04/29/26): Sensors, Naming Vessels, River-class, HUSAR, MK38

Q&A

Happy Wednesday

Another week, another Q&A for us. We got 20 questions. Man, I already feel burnt this week… No rest for the wicked though! I think ive pulled a week of twelve hour days between reserach, archives, and meeting with folks. Add on a bunxh of news, man. I need a vacation! Anyways, this one was fun. I love Q&A where I can be a bit silly. This one was one like 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. Do you have any indication that Canada might establish a sovereign SOSUS-like capability for key locations in the north and sovereign onshore data processing?

Unfortunately, I can't talk in depth about this topic. There are a lot of concepts being worked on as part of the Canadian Arctic Suite of Sensors project.

Part of those might be fixed-array systems; however, the current move is to explore more modern concepts, such as utilizing moored stations and VLF to provide central relay nodes in the Arctic, or deployable, long-life acoustic sensors able to be carried and deployed by UUVs.

That second concept was part of the Rapidly Deployable Fixed Array Sensor project; however, that got rolled into CASS. As of now, the project is in the identification stage. We are just beginning to see some more concrete movement.

The plan is to start deploying systems acquired for CASS in the early 2030s; however, the likes of Cellula Robotics with Guardian and Geospectrum have been trialing and testing potential concepts through IDEaS and the DRDC.

A precursor, if you will, to see what is capable and what kind of systems we need to better monitor potential adversarial elements in the Archipelago. It will very likely be more of an initiative than a project, with multiple systems and capabilities procured under CASS to fulfill this demand.

They got the budget for it. It's a potential billion-dollar project. So, right now, the focus is on examining potential options on the market.

Q2. Does Canada have plans to produce missiles locally, particularly cheaper cruise missiles?

Hanwha does! In all seriousness, there are always discussions. The Federal government isn't prioritizing missiles as an area of investment at this time; they're looking at more fundamental things like 155mm artillery and building out the basic supply chains around that.

That doesn't mean they won't down the line; however, as it stands, it is not a priority for the Feds. There is private interest, though. Raytheon, Kongsberg, Frankenburg, and Hypersonica have all been around shopping the options for stuff. For Kongsberg and Raytheon, I believe it is tied to CPSP and GBAD? Don't quote me.

For Frankenburg and Hypersonica, I have only heard some stuff about them discussing things with folks. There is also obviously Hanwha right now, who just committed yesterday. None of them are the cheaper options you are looking for, unless Kongsberg throws in Rusty Dagger?

That isn't my understanding; however, right now, missiles are a backburner priority. The Feds will encourage it if someone comes, but they aren't hunting.

Q3. Any info on the additional LAVs?

Ask the DIA. Sadly, there is no new info, other than stuff is on the books and people are prepared to move on things. It's the government's ball.

Q4. Any early rumours for names of future ships for the Rivers or future class names for the subs, etc.?

None on the Rivers, unfortunately. That's still an active discussion. Now, if you want MY predictions for things? Well, you're in luck:

FAAST-V: Cities, I think, is possible, if they don't stick to the Orca scheme, which they likely will.

CDC: Flower-class 2.0, but Islands could also be cool and new. I think Flower because the Navy loves nostalgia.

Subs: I have heard a few ideas, like fish, 'Canadian values', and cities, though I think fish will take it. This one is interesting because there is a general lack of historical basis to go off of.

Arctic Mobile Base: I would like Rainbow and Niobe; however, I think Bonny and Maggie will be used again if it comes to pass.

I don't think we'll see Tribals used again, not without a monumental effort to engage ahead of such a choice. I think cities are overused and would like to not see them, but if they were to be used, I would rather it be FASST-V.

Subs are a toss-up.

Q5. Will the RCN's new submarines require modification post-delivery for under-ice operations? What would that look like?

There will be modifications done, primarily in the sonar suite for mapping and ice detection. Punching through the ice ain't in the cards. Even nukes avoid it as a last-resort option, and it is risky, very risky. So, as far as I know, there will be no modifications to the sail or such for surfacing.

The primary modifications we're looking at are sensor-related. The 212CD has a great Kongsberg EM2040 MIL Multibeam Echosounder and EA640 Echosounder Suite; however, for operating in the Archipelago, we're also looking at stuff like overhead-facing sonar to detect surface ice, which in the Archipelago can be quite spontaneous and unpredictable.

That is a safety requirement to ensure that the future CPS can keep track of potential ice hazards when surfacing up North. There might also be modifications required to equipment to ensure it can operate in the Arctic environment. There might also be future modifications to the AIP and battery systems in that regard as well.

Same for procedures. We learn as we go up there. We take it as an incremental step, where we trial and see what things need to be modified and added to ensure that the subs can operate in the Archipelago. Sonar upgrades to better identify and track ice and other anomalies are the major ones, especially for the KSS-III, which doesn't benefit from an in-service, highly capable suite like Kongsberg is providing.

Q6. With MQ-9B procurement slowly moving along, have there been any rumors of a HALE UAV project or study coming down the pipeline?

Funny enough, CANSOFCOM was looking for one a while back lol. I have zero clue how that went for them. Outside that? Sadly, it isn't really a serious topic at this time. It sometimes pops up as an idea, but it is one of those really cool concepts that is forever pushed back by things of greater priority.

A cool idea for a long-endurance, high-altitude platform for persistent Arctic surveillance has been floated before; sadly, I can no longer link it because we've decided public info is bad. However, it is something a few have thought of.

Q7. If Patriot wins the GBAD, do you think that the SM-2 on the Rivers will be replaced by the PAC-3, similar to what the USN is doing?

Maybe? That's a bit too early of a thing to tell, I think. It does provide an option, and although Enduring Phase II isn't leaning towards a Patriot-like system, we do have an ongoing IAMD study that might explore it, maybe. It would be an interesting capability; however, I think it is best to stick to the SM-2 until such time as we know PAC-3 is fully Mk 41 compatible.

SM-2 is a proven naval capability that does exactly what we want. PAC-3 would have to offer some substantial benefits to take that spot. It's a hit-to-kill, highly maneuverable munition designed for tasks like BMD and hypersonic defence. It has a much more expendable and built production base.

There are benefits, but are they enough for the RCN (even in a scenario where there is another operator) to switch? I don't know...

Q8. How does the Mark 38 Mod 4 compare to the Lionfish that was originally planned on the River-class? Is it a significant downgrade when it comes to C-UAS?

It's a trade-off, not a downgrade. Like, at the end of the day, they're both 30mm guns. Both have comparable rates of fire. Both have very capable CUAS munitions available to them in the Mk310 and MF-ABM; both the Mk48 Mod 2 and JANUS-D sensors are great.

The thing about Lionfish, and it's not always the case, is that it just goes that moment above at the highest end. Not always, mind you. I think the Mk48, capability-wise, is better being an independent, off-mount system. That gives it a bit more to play over JANUS-D. Longer detection range, more flexibility being a decoupled system, and it is already AEGIS integrated.

But JANUS-D does have access to a fairly advanced AI tracking and identification system tailor-made for CUAS and swarming tactics. I have heard and seen many great things from it. It has Autonomous Target Classification, Multi-Target Priority Sequencing, and predictive targeting capabilities built in. It is a very nice capability to have access to, and by far the most advanced capability Lionfish holds.

It's lighter as well, for those of you that care. That's the thing about Lionfish. It is a newly developed system utilizing a lot of new, advanced capabilities that might not make it significantly better than the Mk 38, but are very nice to have. The Mk 38 is a reliable workhorse that lacks some of the high-end systems in Lionfish and some of the more modern engineering choices, but it is still a highly capable system.

You can't go wrong with either, but it's going from a 100% solution to a 90% solution. It lacks some gold leaf on top but is still a treat. Italians love their guns lol. They go all out.

Q9. I previously heard mention of an Orca replacement on Lake Winnipeg. Was that any more than musings? Might they try anywhere else beyond the Coasts/Great Lakes?

I... have not heard that, honestly. Right now, that's a bit up in the air for where FASST-V might be deployed outside the Coasts and Great Lakes. If I hear anything, I'll let you know.

Q10. If the US chooses the XM30 (and we do too for MCAV), will we use the same specifications for the Lynx as the US or something more aligned with Euro models?

It 100% depends on our requirements. It might be a bespoke Canadian option for all we know. We don't have any idea what the MCAV team is setting for requirements, and as such, it's impossible to tell what configuration we might be offered.

The close border, though, and likely supply integration from that, might see more American than Euro in any potential choice? That is yet to be seen, though. Again, we can't really say.

Q11. Thinking about long-duration UUVs, have you come across anything like a reusable sonobuoy with propulsion that could be recovered after use?

Sure. They're called Autonomous Mobile Sonobuoys; however, what you're looking at from a practical standpoint are essentially UUVs with specific payloads integrated into them. There are a few like that out there; QinetiQ's SEAScout is likely the closest to your concept, even being designed to be A-sized. SUBMATT from Lockheed has had some concepts like that; even though it's designed as a training target, it's flexible enough to be adapted to other roles.

EmbeddedArt's "Treson" Sensor isn't quite what you're looking for, but it is a reusable sonobuoy if you're also interested in non-propelled options. Really, what you're looking at are specifically designed A-sized UUVs. That isn't hard to find, and some are looking down the route of replacing the sonobuoy. They just haven't really caught on yet.

Q12. Will we receive modern magazines with CMAR, similar to PMAG, or will we continue using the legacy metal magazines from the current C7 and C8 fleet?

We will be getting PMAGs lol. Magpul has been part of the project for a while now. They were showing them off before. That's already contracted.

Q13. Have you found out more about Axon's activities with the CAF? I know there have been meetings. What’s on offer?

Oh, you again. Hello. I did not forget about you. I can't say I have heard much, but I do know they're showing off the newer TASER 10 and TASER 7 models, body cameras, as well as their Dedrone line of non-kinetic CUAS products. I don't know which ones; I believe Dedrone was offered for the CUAS Phase II UOR a while back?

Unfortunately, I can't say I have much info here; however, it seems Tasers and CUAS are the two notable ones.

Q14. The Navy would never divulge, but any thoughts on the mixture of filling 24 Mk 41 cells? Tomahawks, ESSMs, SM-2s, SM-3s, and cooperative engagement capable SM-6s?

Plans right now are for Tomahawks, ESSMs, and SM-2s. Any sort of loadout would be up to the operational requirements, environment, and availability to the Navy. It won't be some universal standard. There are some discussions on SM-6 acquisition; SM-3, not really. Not that I have heard. Rivers ain't really gonna be doing ballistic missile interception; they could if they wanted, but it isn't their primary role.

For Continental Defence, at least, land-based systems will take the shooter role in most cases. Anywho, loadout depends. A standard could be upwards of 12 cells for ESSMs; that's 48 on hand. 8 SM-2s for longer-range engagements, and maybe 4 Tomahawks on hand? You could ditch the Tomahawk and do 16 and 8 for the ESSM/SM-2, or do 12 and 12. You got 24 cells on Batch I. You got limits, but you still have some decent flexibility to mix and match as needed.

Again, it's circumstantial in this case. 12-8-4 might end up being the kinda baseline if I could guess? That is an... okay mix for 24 in my mind.

Q15. Thinking about CDC survivability and exportability, would ice-strengthened hulls be more resistant to combat damage than standard military-grade hulls?

A 300kg YJ-18 or a modern heavyweight torpedo are gonna fuck you up no matter what. Keep in mind that the CDC will be only marginally strengthened, and even then, thickness doesn't equal protection. It's so marginal that it isn't even a factor.

Keep in mind also that not all steel is created equal, and depending on the vessels, that matters. Most Polar-class vessels aren't built with the high tensile strength and toughness of modern naval combatants, which itself is designed to counter modern anti-ship missiles.

Either way, it doesn't change the equation. A modern anti-ship missile fucks you either way. Survivability is on design and redundancies, not steel thickness.

Q16. In the newsletter, you said there was a project to replace the Blackjack. What could a replacement look like?

It might be more Blackjacks lol. The project is in the identification phase, like many others, and so information on what is desired is limited. More Blackjacks is on the table; it's a very loved system that does its job fantastically. Unfortunately, I just don't have info right now on requirements to honestly say. It's in very early stages, so that isn't uncommon, mind you.

Q17. Have there been any discussions around the military looking to stand up its own HUSAR capability?

PSC operates the six HUSAR task forces. The current focus is on supporting them in this endeavour. This is inherently a public safety file, and they take the lead. However, there is obviously a recognition that Canada needs to do more.

There are no plans for any new, dedicated HUSAR capability. Instead, the focus is on looking at how projects can reasonably take note of growing domestic demands and emergencies to better create outcomes.

nTACS, as an example, asks about what platform is best suited for assisting in domestic roles, including in domestic environments, and how we can ensure requirements fit it and other Emergency Support Functions.

The Army Modernization and the Defence of Canada division is also looking at what capabilities it needs to support domestic operations. None describe a specific HUSAR capability, but Urban Emergency Management and Response is in the discussion.

So, it's a conversation, but not as a capability itself.

Q18. What are your thoughts on the Mark 58 CRAW, and do you think we could see future adoption for the CPSP or CDC?

I think the Mk 58 is interesting; however, I don't know a whole lot about it. I know the basics, and I think the concept of a small, lightweight torpedo for torpedo defence is interesting. Lord knows we need more scalable, light-footprint systems available on the market. However, again, info on it is limited, and I don't think I've put much thought into it?

As a complement, if it works as advertised and has a minimal footprint? Sure. I can see the benefit. I can see a purpose for it.

Q19. I feel like one thing missing from current RCN plans is a ship like the UK's RFA Proteus MROSS. Are there any talks of the Navy procuring something similar?

I have argued for it a few times lol. My cable article has a section dedicated to a very similar vessel. There aren't really any plans for it as it exists sadly; some people I know like the idea, but it isn't a Navy idea, if that makes sense. It isn't something I'm tracking myself, and the interest seems minimal given the slew of other projects on the docket.

Q20. A couple of years ago, a render of a so-called Senator SMP popped up that differed from the standard Senator. Any indication of what Roshel might offer bespoke to us?

I know the Senator SMP well because I'm the one who leaked it lol. Unfortunately, only the image exists, with very little info. It, like many variants, is actually based off of the Senator Pickup.

That is likely to fulfill the four-door requirement set out in LUV, while providing a bit more of a common platform to the pickup. It features a few interesting changes: an integrated smoke launcher system, a hinged tire setup, and a new tow bar. It isn't too dissimilar, though, to most Senators.

Is it what Roshel is offering? At the time I suspected so; however, they have never said that publicly, and that image is over two years old. It could have changed by now. Next time I see them, I'll ask!

---

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

---