Let's Talk with Noah (05/06/26): CP8A, Split IFM? LAV Uparming, Most Important Project? Adaptable Deck Launcher, CDC
Q&A
Happy Wednesday
We're officially in CANSEC season! That means that it's time to answer your questions eithout trying to reveal to much stuff. I get a bit excited every year, even though I don't like attending CANSEC, if only for the gossip.
We got a good series of questions this week, and I love how many people are engaging in territories they usually don't. You guys might not know this, but I try to take note of you guys and your interests. I love seeing usuals step oit of their box, and this week was full of it!
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. Any indication or rumours of whether the Army might go with both K9 and RCH in order to have both wheeled and tracked options?
There are no rumors. It will be one or the other. Both the K9 and RCH take a module approach, essentially meaning that the gun module itself is a self-contained product that could be, in theory, rapidly adapted to any number of platforms able to accommodate its power and weight requirements.
Both have demonstrated integration on both wheeled and tracked platforms. RCH has shown off less, but the concept is there in several forms. It makes zero sense to go with two separate modules even if you argued one was better for a tracked platform and the other wheeled.
The cost of acquiring both systems, running two separate supply chains to accommodate them, and training people on two separate platforms negates the long-term benefit in my mind, especially the numbers we're looking at.
Same as subs; they might seem similar, but internally they're clearly different products with different internals. For Canada especially, where we are further burdened by the needs for mobility and transportability that others don't necessarily have, having two separate platforms running? It makes zero sense for essentially zero benefit.
It will be one or the other; simple as that.
Q2. Will the RCAF CP-8A aircraft be equipped equivalent to the USN P-8A Increment 3 Block 2 configuration?
They will be equivalent to the Block 2 standard with minimal modification from the baseline. There had been talk around of integrating the Boeing-developed Multi-Mission Pod onto the platform; however, that has never been confirmed as an option.
The P-8 we will receive from Boeing will sadly have a lack of Canadian-developed technologies that we've pioneered over the life of the CP-140. It is a shame, as we've built quite the developed industry around them. We will very likely see newer, Canadian technology slowly integrated over the life of the fleet; however, that will be incremental in nature.
We need the P-8 yesterday. We have already been delayed thanks to Boeing's own delays and workplace issues that have now pushed back the timeline into next year. Unfortunately, speed requires sacrifice to what we can do.
Whatever Boeing is making is what we get, essentially.
Q3. If the Hanwha is convincing enough, could we potentially see the Chunmoo and HIMARS in use by the army? With HIMARS as a lighter mobility asset for missiles?
That seems to be the game plan. The funny thing is that even without an order, Hanwha is promising to have the supply chain built up, at least up to the launcher itself and production of the base 130mm rockets. All of that is to be done on the basis of export orders, though. No Canada required.
I don't think they'll be able to do it myself. We are committed to Chunmoo, we have landed on the 26 launchers, and the RCA really doesn't have much interest. If they can get more launchers, they would rather it be HIMARS that we know fits our desires and requirements.
Chunmoo is a huge accomplishment for the Koreans. They deserve credit for its development and how far they've come. It is still not to the same caliber as HIMARS. It is still not the platform that we need. The use-case gets better being made here, but it still isn't enough to push it over HIMARS.
There is a lack of a 300km+ AShM, a single pod variant that's still in development, and munitions that, while good, still ain't up there with the likes of PRSM that does everything we want and then some, in a single munition that plans to only continue to outclass the CTM-family.
Maybe the Feds push it for the sake of it, but it isn't likely in my opinion. I don't see anyone jumping.
Q4. Are there any serious discussions around upgunning the LAVs to 30mm for better C-UAS performance and possible shared logistics with whatever MEDCAV becomes?
Yes. There's also discussion on dropping down to a remote weapon system and returning the LAV to the days of the Bison; okay, not that bad, but you get the idea. That talk right now falls under Additional LAV for the foreseeable future, and then in the very distant timeline, Optionally Crewed Combat Vehicle.
The discussion is happening, yes. It is one of several options for the LAV fleet on the table. MCAV seems fairly locked to the 30mm from what I know; however, there is always time for plans to change.
Things are a bit in flux right now. People forget that Army Mod dominated a lot of conversations last year, and with it, we're now at the stage of figuring out how best we execute it.
So yeah, it's being discussed as the Army goes to make its case for LAV 6 2.0 and ACSV 2.0 over the next decade; however, it isn't set yet where it will fall. I believe it will be higher than lower, if you catch me.
Q5. Any clearer information regarding the increase to the IFM numbers you mentioned a while ago?
There were rumors that IFM could see an increase of numbers; however, I sadly have not heard what that proposal looks like or how serious a discussion it is. Maybe that's a sign that it isn't serious; I don't know... however, all I know is there were rumors of an increase.
Q6. Any news yet on Special Forces capabilities of the 2 CPSP contenders and how they might differ from each other?
Unfortunately not, sorry. I have not been able to get much else out of folks, sadly. You have reminded me though, so this week I will go and try again to ask around and see if people are willing to discuss now. You never know; people sometimes get more open with time.
Q7. Do you think BAE's Adaptable Deck Launcher system is being thought of as a way to increase the RCD's missile load?
No. I don't think so. Space is an issue. Where do you put it? ADL isn't small, nor is it light. If you wanted to add 8 cells through ADL (and assuming you want strike length), you're pushing over 40,000 pounds empty. Tactical length ain't much better either.
ADL also takes up a fairly decent chunk of space. I believe it's around 8x4m for the launcher. It's not a small, easily bolted-on system. It requires significant SWAP margins to be viable. Then again, where do you put it? Where does it go that a Mk 41 can't? Above the Mission Bay? Not happening at those margins.
If the issue for the River-class is space and weight, then how does a bigger, heavier system fix that? If you're hoping to utilize space amidships, then you need to account for the fact that ADL isn't ExLS. It is a significantly larger, heavier system. Even if you add one that's only four cells....
It just doesn't seem viable to me.
Q8. Will Borden be getting dedicated infrastructure to support the BMQ school there? How quickly can they expand to provide support?
Yes. In fact, an APN just closed a few weeks ago looking to engage Design-Builders on future opportunities for the design and construction of Basic Military Qualification Training facilities and associated site servicing at Borden, including multiple training buildings and a new central multi-functional facility.
So you're just on time asking about it, ain't you! Borden is already undergoing a significant training expansion, with Borden expected to see four lines of recruit training this year. Hundreds of new instructors between CFLRS are looking to be recruited in the coming years.
The expansion is already happening. This infrastructure expansion will further support that going into 2030, but make no mistake, we're seeing a multi-year, sustained effort to expand recruitment and training capacity across the CAF already being executed.
Q9. Any discussions on lengthening later RCD batches to accommodate for future needs, maybe such as more VLS?
No. That's not an active discussion at this time that I know of. The navy would like to see uniformity instead of taking the Aussie route of lengthening to accommodate. They believe we can achieve what we want without it.
Q10. Canada is currently advancing on Small Modular Reactors (SMR). You think there's a naval component that could be studied?
I don't know, honestly. I am not sold as much on nuclear-powered vessels myself. It is expensive, very expensive, and requires significant infrastructure to support it. I think we could if we wanted. In fact, I think we're very well prepared now, and in the future as Canada goes through its nuclear renaissance, maybe there will be initiative.
Older folks will remember stuff like AMPS, a similar commercial maritime reactor proposal that you can find material on in our archives! That is remembered for subs, where the issues and struggles are well known. Developing a nuclear reactor for submarines is a significantly different beast to a civilian SMR.
Keep in mind from a commercial and surface perspective that there are several hurdles we as Canadians would face. That includes regulatory frameworks, international port acceptance, insurance structures, and having the support infrastructure and workforce in place.
You can follow the Aussies and their subs; now scale that up to include commercial and surface vessels? You run into a lot of hurdles before the reactor itself. Building an SMR on land is an entirely different engineering and safety challenge than integrating a reactor onto a surface vessel.
The frameworks at present don't exist. The workforce at our ports and the supply chain don't exist. To build it would be a national, decades-long endeavour that would require tens of billions in investments to get ports and supply chains nuclear-ready.
It is not impossible. I don't believe in that. I maintain hope we could, but I would need to see the proposal and concepts, and then we would need to see significant commitment from all parties: federal, provincial, local, indigenous, everyone.
It would be a national, whole-of-society effort even if we don't say it.
Q11. Will Korea offer the KF-21 to Canada seeing as how close we are?
They raised it; we didn't have interest. KAI was minimally engaged by the Fighter review and basically eliminated from the start. KAI has had little interest in pushing for it as well. They don't see it as a winning likelihood. They're focused on FFLIT and the TF-50.
Q12. Does the navy plan to update their diving masks to systems with a HUD & panoramic display, or do they want to stick with more traditional systems?
I have not heard it myself, as in I have not heard it ever mentioned. With the standing up of the Advanced Naval Capabilities Unit though, and the navy's push for trial and experimentation of new technologies, it is certainly an area that I could see us following in the future.
That might be the direction this heads: experimentation, trial, and incremental adoption through a combination of innovation challenges and multi-year R&D initiatives spearheaded by the likes of the ANCU.
I'm sure we're watching the USN Divers Augmented Vision Display project closely either way!
Q13. Do you see the Inkas M1 MRAP as a serious contender against Roshell? It should be awarded to a Canadian company.
I can't say I know much of it! Maybe they'll bring one to CANSEC. The M1 is essentially a Canadian Serval, utilizing the same base Texelis chassis and similar design. It is slightly smaller, but overall is extremely similar.
It is very new, though, announced only in November. It is still a platform we have not seen much of. We know a bit about it... The M1 comes in at ~15 tons, with a Cummins ISL8.9 8.9L engine and an Allison 3200SP transmission.
It features a V-Hull, Monocoque hull certified up to a STANAG IVA/B Ballistic and Blast protection standard. It also includes an Air Renewal system, providing the vehicle with CBRN protection.
The M1 has a top speed of 110km/h with a range of at least 600km. Other features include Flat-Run tire systems, a Soundproof APU, and an independent military-grade suspension with hydro-shocks.
It isn't in the class of LUV, though. It is several tons heavier than a Senator or JLTV. It fits more into the MRAP category than the Protected Mobility Vehicle category of the others.
And that's okay! It doesn't advertise as being in that category. The M1 firmly positions itself along the lines of a traditional MRAP. It competes for a different market with different demands compared to the Senator, at least in my opinion.
They are similar but distinct platforms for different roles. That's the best way to view it.
Q14. Is the RCD under-armed? Consider a Type 52D has 16 x YJ-18 missiles. The RCD would need 56-64 VLS (20 x SM-6, 16 x SM-2, 16 x ESSM, 4-12 x available VLS for misc.).
I think we could and should do more, certainly, but we also need to take into account the expectations and situations we expect the River-class to be in. No one expects them to be charging after a Type 52 in the Pacific.
Nor do we expect them to operate in isolation, in a conflict scenario, without other assets or allies. We can argue if the RCN should maintain an independent capacity to maintain a fleet able to contend with China alone; I don't see that scenario happening, and neither does the Navy or anyone else.
Are they outgunned? On an individual level, yes; however, it only paints one side of the story, ignoring other capabilities like LEEDS, other assets, environmental concerns, and allied involvement.
We don't expect to contend with China on a one-to-one basis. To do so would raise its own challenges. What we do have, though, is a vessel capable of being survivable, contributing to allied efforts in a potential conflict, and presenting a credible enough deterrent to make adversaries reconsider possible action against us
.
Q15. Has the RCN shown any interest in the 3SM Tyrfing? A long-range anti-ship missile would level the field against Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles.
There is interest, especially as it relates to CPSP and the 212CD obviously; however, Tyrfing is a decade out at minimum from being a viable platform, so it's one of those long-term interests you mark down as something to keep up on and engage.
Interest is there, but Tyrfing is a long way out.
Q16. Big picture time: of the current swath of procurement projects, which one stands out to you as the most consequential to the future of the CAF?
Pan-Domain Command and Control. Zero doubt. It is the foundation that brings everything together. It is what makes everything "work."
The Pan-Domain Command and Control (PDC2) system is a comprehensive framework being developed by the CAF to unify command and control capabilities across all operational domains. This initiative is a central component of the CAF's broader digital transformation strategy.
PDC2 is heavily inspired by the United States' Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept, which seeks to enable seamless coordination and information sharing across multiple domains.
Similarly, PDC2 strives to establish a cloud-based, AI-driven network that ensures rapid decision-making and action across all military operations. It will provide the CAF with a significant decision-making advantage, leveraging AI, machine learning (ML), and data analytics to process and analyze vast amounts of information swiftly and accurately.
The modern, interconnected battlespace runs through PDC2. Platforms like the F-35 rely on that backbone. It is how we communicate, how we analyze vast amounts of data, and how we make critical decisions at critical times. PDC2 brings everything into the network. It ensures all our capabilities operate in unity.
Without it? That system fails. It doesn't work as intended. It immediately cuts many of our next-gen capabilities and platforms at the knees when they don't have the digital foundation to support them. That alone, to me, makes it the most important piece of the puzzle here.
Q17. Have you heard any rumors on what type of power and propulsor systems the navy is looking at for CDC?
A bit, but not much. I haven't heard much, but there is a desire to look at things like hybrid propulsion, alternative fuels, and modern energy management systems for CDC.
Environmental impact is an area I know CDC is looking extensively into, including emissions reduction, which the propulsion system gets a lot of consideration for. Noise reduction is another area of concern for CDC. There is a desire to explore what commercial technologies and systems could be leveraged here as opposed to bespoke, militarized systems.
Sadly, I haven't really heard much on this from the navy side. It just hasn't really come up in the conversation.
Q18. What's happening with the MINERVA Initiative? They launched their first challenge with IDEaS this week - True North Precision?
It's progressing, slowly but surely. True North Precision is under the Minerva banner and is the latest in the line of IDEaS pilots to be launched. It isn't the first, though! Drone Surge fell under the Minerva banner. There were a few working groups for both UAS and UGV that happened a few weeks ago. I didn't attend, but I know a lot of people weren't happy.
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, and 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 or has a proper system in place to execute that vision properly.
Same for UGV; even though we're seeing a lot of progress, hell, I'd say more so right now than UAS, I still worry a lot.
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. I just don't know yet if this will succeed...
Q19. After seeing Hanwha's recent approach with producing munitions locally, can TKMS match them? Right now CPSP seems to be leaning in favour of Hanwha.
Munitions? Yeah. Kongsberg throws in NSM, and that alone makes it a serious contention. Add on potentially future munitions like JSM or Tyrfing? NSM would absolutely be massive, one of the munitions that could singularly dominate a conversation.
Never forget Kongsberg is here too, lol. LIG offers a lot, but it isn't infallible that Kongsberg and TKMS couldn't offer a lot here if they really wanted. This still ain't over.
Remember that both bids included things that we don't know about yet. Believe me, no one is done announcing things yet. It's always best to wait until most hands are drawn before judging, and both sides still got cards to play.
