Let's Talk with Noah (05/14/26): CANSEC, RCA, CDC Export, LUSV, Mission Bays, More CANSEC

Q&A

Happy Thursday

Apologies for the delay everyone! My dear doctor made me run around yesterday getting some tests and vaccines, so sadly I got unintentionally caught up. My bad! I won't keep you here for long, though a warning that next weeks newsletter and Q&A might be slightly delayed.

As always you can ask your questions, and vote on others, over on our Slido page. 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. With Nanisivik being killed, what's next for the Navy in terms of Arctic facilities?

Arctic Mobile Base. Simple as that. That is the primary focus right now when it comes to what the Navy plans for future infrastructure in the Arctic. I spoke about it before, but while there might be future collaboration with facilities like Grays Bay to ensure they can provide some support and potential refueling to Navy ships, there isn't a concrete plan for leveraging existing or planned commercial infrastructure at scale.

I spoke about it extensively in my AMB post, but the fact is that many planned facilities (and current at that point for places like Tuktoyaktuk and Iqaluit) are either unsuitable for significant Navy use, are in the wrong location that we need them to be, or are commercial facilities that only exist as unsolicited proposals with no actual plan or proposal in place.

None of which are what the Navy need, and the Navy does not believe it has a decade to make physical facilities try to work only for them to fall into another Nanisivik. That's why they've decided to try with AMB, where a lot of those problems don't exist.

Yes, it has its own issues, and the concept is a bit grand, but the fact is we tried the traditional, straightforward approach and it has not worked.

Q2. Are there any plans for a strategic reserve of high purity quartz (and UHPQ)? As well as expand/fund the exploration, extraction, and refining of HPQ/UHPQ?

There is currently no plan that I know exists. What HPQ/UHPQ fall under is the broader Critical Mineral strategy, and funding tools like the $2 billion Critical Minerals Sovereign Fund or, perhaps, future stockpiling efforts by the DIA.

With Canada refusing to create a proper semiconductor strategy, and now looking at spinning off the CPFC, I do have some questions on this front to what the Federal Government wants to do on the critical minerals and critical components front.

With zero plans, vague commitments, and brushing off to other strategies, sadly for you, I don't think you'll see much of anything anytime soon. Perhaps the DIA will take a focus on certain, forgotten areas like HPQ/UHPQ, but I wouldn't expect it. I suspect they will continue to fall under the broad Critical Minerals banner, and likely not on the top of the list.

Q3. Considering NZ inquired about CDC, could it be exported to allies in the Pacific or the EU to relieve domestic budgeting concerns caused by CDC's scope creep?

Meh. Money isn't an issue with CDC anymore, not as much as it was before. As for export? It's limited, but the potential is there. Funny enough, the likely market for something like CDC would likely be here at home. New Zealand inquired, sure, but the competition in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East is very tough.

Keep in mind also that CDC is a very unique vessel, even assuming that the eventual winner has a non-ice strengthened variant. It is very much tailored to very specific requirements. Modular, heavy UxS focus, long-range, and high-endurance.

Both unique and not unique at the same time, lol. I think there is an opportunity down South. Chile has similar requirements, could likely benefit from a vessel able to travel into the Antarctic edge, and has an aging fleet likely in need of replacement in the coming years.

They're also a fellow CMS330 user, have experience with Canadian-designed vessels in the Almirante Viel, Aquiles, and the vessels of the Escotillón IV Project. All Vard too, lol. They are one of the prime candidates I would identify for a CDC export.

Nordic exports, going up north, are not as likely to be successful as everyone is already in the middle of undergoing renewals. We will sadly be late to the game there; a shame, but a matter of bad timing. That's just me, though. I don't see an opportunity there.

There might be other opportunities; again, even removing the ice-strengthening, there might be room in places like South America, where I currently envision most of the potential to be. Elsewhere is a lot harder to envision.

Q4. Is there anything from the industry side of things that you are particularly interested to see at CANSEC?

It's hard to say because a lot of people haven't shown off what they're doing yet, honestly. A lot of people are teasing; you guys are all very mean for doing this to me, but not a lot of solid stuff yet to really say.

I expect with CDC we'll see a lot of cool stuff from folks like Irving, Seaspan, Davie, and Vard. I know Team Vigilance is likely to have a new redesign given the shift of requirements. We might also see the Training and Recruitment Vessel Ontario Shipyards is working off revealed. That will be cool for a first concept of FASST-V.

Saab I hear is gonna have a big booth, which would be great because Saab has simulators, and that automatically makes them one of the coolest people there. Roshel has been quiet the last six months, so I expect something from them.

GDLS has a lot of space, same as Airbus. Airbus and Saab both have big outdoor spaces this year, which has me curious and excited. INKAS has a whole perimeter set up, lol. CAE has a bunch of different booths set up, which has me curious.

New companies also interest me. ARA Robotique, AVSS, Cohere, Hensoldt, JSI, Open Ocean Robotics, Ericsson, and Edison Motors are among the new people coming for the first time. I'm really excited to meet everyone! I definitely wanna sit with the guys at Edison for a long chat.

Kongsberg and TKMS have really good-sized booths this year. Thales I'm also gonna be talking a lot to, hopefully, if there's time. One thing that sucks about CANSEC is no one has a good ten minutes to talk. Babcock also has a massive booth this year, which REALLY has me curious because I keep asking why Babcock needs the space they're booking...

I'm REALLY excited for the show, so much so that I almost can't contain myself! Although I will call all your asses out and say I'm not seeing enough CANSEC material yet. I wanna be posting! Send me your stuff! Don't be shy.

Q5. If KSS-3 is selected, how do you think the 10 VLS cells will be used? Is there compatibility with existing anti-ship missiles? SAMs? Could they transport UUVs?

Hanwha has said they could likely integrate the Haeseong-III and V missiles to the VLS. Hanwha also has plans to integrate subsurface-to-air missiles like IDAS on the 212CD; however, I know nothing about what that system looks like or how it works.

They could transport UUVs, though there is dedicated space for UUVs integrated already, lol. It is a space. What you can fit in it, and how much complication you have with integration, is basically your only concern. You could put UUVs in there. Sure. You could even put divers if you wanna get a bit fucky.

With missiles, I should say, is where you have to make sure of proper integration both electronically and with the Naval Shield CMS. UUVs don't necessarily, depending on how they're designed and utilized; not as much a concern there.

As always, the value of VLS isn't so much what exists for it, but the futureproofing it provides by having that extra, larger space compared to the torpedo tubes.

Futureproofing is important. You don't ask what exists now and what you need now, but rather, what could things look like in twenty years? What new capabilities could this offer? That could be UUVs, or new missiles. It could be things like decoys.

VLS gives you some room for future growth that the torpedo tube doesn't, but you also need to weigh that on other things. Will you actually, reasonably utilize it? Do you have the capacity to support developing off of them? There is the debate on the value of a larger platform, the sacrifices you make when dedicating such a space to VLS over other capabilities, extra batteries, or stores.

It isn't an automatic better, but it does have advantages. As always, it's a matter of tradeoffs and balances.

Q6. What does the Navy plan on sticking in the RCD's MMB that is worth trading weapon systems for and couldn't be handled by smaller Navy vessels or the Coast Guard?

The reasoning behind this from the Navy's perspective comes down to a few things. We've talked about it before, but we'll say it again. On the base Type 26, there is only so much margin for growth.

At the end of the day, we've exhausted a lot of those margins with choices like integrating the SPY-7, going for a larger, more heavy main gun in the Vulcano, etc.

We've pulled back on some of those precisely so we could add some growth room back; however, there are still heavy limits to what can be done. That is where the Mission Bay comes in.

You can stick just about anything in the Mission Bay: MCM modules, autonomous systems, storage, additional facilities, boats and other craft, certain containerized countermeasures. All of which I myself have heard discussed.

It is the only area with significant space and growth room still present without heavily modifying the hull, and even that provides only diminishing returns to what can be done. The Navy isn't going to throw out the Mission Bay, because what happens 15, 20 years from now if you need space, or need an area that provides access to things like containerized systems?

It is quite literally the only real flexible space available to the River-class, and so the Navy treats it as very important. Wanna launch drones from the Mission Bay? You can do that. Want more torpedo countermeasures? Can also do that. Wanna carry an XLUUV? A River-class can do that because of the mission bay. It won't without it.

Same reason the Australians, despite the option, also did not decide to unilaterally scrap the Mission Bay, and instead went with a costly and consuming redesign. Going into the Mission Bay is a sacrifice to the future growth of the platform. It restricts the River-class's ability to rapidly onboard capabilities like autonomous systems, MCM equipment, etc.

It changes the fundamental capabilities of the platform, and for the Royal Canadian Navy, they aren't willing to do that before the first hits the water, before anything has been done. A lot of people treat this as an easy, "just make it" decision. It really isn't. It isn't something you just decide.

The Navy has taken the approach of trying not to touch it, because right now we need platforms in the water. That means we can't be tied down trying to redesign and rework everything to add more VLS cells, certainly cutting up half the ship to do so.

That could change in the future, but you do it by sacrificing almost all the growth room the River-class has to make them an AAW destroyer like a Burke; and one has to ask if they really need to be a Burke...

Q7. What are your land, air, and sea products to watch at CANSEC this year?

All of them, lol. I kinda answered above, but there is a lot of teasing going on, and a lot of people really pulling out the stops this year. BAE is bringing over a Beowulf this year, which I have never seen, so I'm excited. Roshel is likely to bring an ExtremeV, so with the Voyager D12, we'll have all three DAME products in person to really see and get a look at.

De Havilland, I believe, is bringing their Sherpa? I can't remember for sure, but I swear they are. I would like to see one. Rumors are that Airbus might be bringing some helos as well. That would be really cool to see.

Inkas will have the M1; GDLS is teasing having a model of the LAV 10X10 with the AGM show up. I wanna see what one looks like, lol. No matter what, we'll have a few LAVs there anyways. I expect Vard and Davie, at the least, will have CDC models available. I hope Irving and Seaspan have some too.

Saab better have their RBS70 simulator where you get to shoot down C130s. If they don't, I'm gonna be upset as hell. That's one of the most fun things they have out at CANSEC. I expect we'll see a Blackwolf, which I wanna talk to Cambli and get inside one. Same for Senators. Sadly, I didn't have time to get in one last year.

Engaging with people and collecting material. I LOVE brochures and such. I love physical media. I have all the stuff from last year, lol. This year I want it all. So if you wanna know how to get better CANSEC coverage from Noah, entice me with pamphlets and such.

Q8. Maybe I missed it, but are there plans to modernize or replace the C9A2? Possibly something like the M27 IAR or a smaller 7.62 platform like the HK421?

I swear it is on the books, just like the C6 Modernization; however, I have no details, and my assumption is that they are at very, very early stages of discussion. We're talking napkin level. As for what replaces it? I don't wanna sound rude or mean, but the answer is likely whatever Colt feels like, lol.

I like the FN EVOLYS myself; I have talked to some about it, and I really love the sounds of it. Sticking to FN might be the natural pathway, but that is dependent. It isn't really used by anyone else, which might be a bit of a drag.

Really we have to see what's desired and how much authority we give to Colt to make that choice. Maybe they design something in-house and we just have to hope for the best. We don't know, but that certainly would be something to watch.

Q9. Any more info for increased numbers for Trucks and ERC?

It's on the books. The proper name is Additional Logistics Vehicles (ALV), not to be confused with the former ALAV. I have no concrete details because everyone keeps telling me different things. Also on the books, as we reported a few weeks ago, is the MSVS MilCOTS Recapitalization (MSVS R1).

That is also at very early stages, and isn't looking to a proper replacement for about a decade, by which point both the MilCOTS and SMP will long be past their expected lifespans. MilCOTS were technically end-of-life in 2023; SMP is 2028 as I know it?

Lastly, in the far off, is Logistics Vehicle Recapitalization (LVR), which is basically a name on the board that I have heard zero about. ERC got its options exercised, and for now that is about it. It still isn't enough mind you, and there are proposals to increase as we transition to a Divisional structure, but I have no solid numbers.

Q10. The Max Bernays here in Esquimalt has a new TERMA radar, your thoughts?

The AOPS are receiving some new 6002s! Same model as the ones they've always had, no real change in capability. It is nice though to see them get some newer ones, especially given our historical precedence to cheap out on these things. Regularly replacing critical systems, even with the same model, without a major project tied to it is a healthy, needed step in regular maintenance that I am happy to hear they are getting.

Q11. Is there any real discussion around infrastructure in cities? New armouries to support expansion and replace the old buildings that units have long since outgrown?

Of course there is; a lot fell under the Reserve Infrastructure Investment Program, and it is an ever-controversial topic between holding on to historical presence and identity, and the need for new, modern facilities able to support what we want to do.

There are a few off the top of my head that have been recent. North Park Armoury finished its Phase One about three years ago. That involved rebuilding the west wall and widening the entrances to accommodate modern vehicles.

It's moving on to Phase II now, which was awarded last year. That will be done around 2029/2030 and involve a whole bunch of structural repairs, adding geothermal heating/cooling, solar panels, and a bunch of interior upgrades and modernizations. Guelph Armoury, I know, got similar work done a few years ago.

Sherbrooke is undergoing a massive expansion and renewal. The Colonel Gaëtan-Côté Armoury and William Armoury will be getting restoration work done; new facilities will be built as well. That's coming in three phases, I believe. Edmonton Armoury is also getting a massive expansion, something like a thousand units. Ortona also got a revitalization.

There's the new armoury in Lévis, Yellowknife is getting a new headquarters, and Esquimalt is adding a few hundred housing units. There is a lot going on; perhaps not enough, certainly not with the massive expansion we're looking at. It'll put a strain on a lot of historical facilities to try and accommodate.

There are many in favour of abandoning or downscaling the use of historical armouries for much more purpose-built, modern facilities. There is also a drastic need to re-expand, especially with the reserves, where their presence is and how they engage with communities.

Abandon is radical, even in the conversation, but there is only so much you can do with a historical facility. The fact is that the places people live and engage have shifted in the last 100, 50, hell, 20 years in places like the GTA. It opens up the conversation a lot to where the CAF needs to be and what modern facilities they need to support it, especially in a 400,000 strong, 5% Reserve.

The conversation and scale have shifted so much the last year that, really, most plans are no longer sufficient and are outdated. Part of why a new policy is being worked on; one I hope tackles this.

Q12. CV90: Mature, very transportable, JEF standard? Vs Lynx: industrial benefits, high tech?

I plan to talk about this more after CANSEC, because with the RFI out, we now have something to engage companies on. Right now, the early favourite discussed is the Lynx.

Some will mention the Abrams and XM30, which I neglected to mention. That's because I'm waiting to see what happens with OMFV, and as I know, GDLS has been focused on Ajax.

That might shift now, but as far as I know, Ajax has been the primary product GDLS has promoted to the CAF for MCAV.

Q13. From what I've heard, the Tomahawks for the River-class will be block V TLAMs, but are there any rumors about block Va for more standoff range than NSMs?

I haven't heard it come up. A possibility, but I have yet to hear anyone discuss it. I wouldn't expect to hear about stuff like that until down the road. Munitions are always something that tends to be expanded upon and show up closer to in-service.

Q14. Your CDC Wiki lists the Bofors 57mm mk3 as its main gun. But if it's 110-120m, could the requirement be upgraded to an Oto STRALES 76mm for land fire-support?

It could, but I think they'll land hard on the 57. We know it, we have the supply chain established, the expertise. Land attack isn't something the CDC, as a primarily Continental vessel, is really looking at as a high priority.

CUAS, CUxS Interception Operations, and Sovereignty Enforcement all take much higher priority on the list, and for those, the 57 does an amazing job in a smaller, cheaper profile, with the system already in place domestically to support it.

It's not that the 76 is bad, mind you, just that the 57 is the simpler, more efficient option for the tasks and roles we wanna put the CDC in. We don't need a 76 for CUAS or shooting USVs. Don't need it for going after illegal vessels. Don't need it to show force. It's easier to stick to what we have and know.

Q15. Any info on uncrewed missile ships CRCN speculated on a while ago?

MUSV and LUSV. It is a concept the Navy is exploring, though unlike our Aussie cousins, we're taking a slow approach, waiting and seeing how others do. It isn't like Canadian companies don't have concepts; Vard has one, but more so that there are other priorities that take precedence.

That on top of the fact that MUSVs/LUSVs, especially as missile platforms, are still a very untested, early-stage concept for everyone. At this time, there is still a lot on the autonomy side, digital infrastructure, security, and the actual weapon systems themselves when talking about shit like MK70; just a lot of things still in concept or hard challenges to fix.

So we have interest, but it isn't something we're pouring a bunch of time and resources into when shit like CDC, FASST-V, and AMB are on the docket and need more attention. Hell, even other things like XLUUVs for the Arctic we could argue is a larger priority from a Defence of Canada position, and something we are heavily investing in.

Q16. I read in the CBC (re: the end of Op Palaci) that the Army is retiring the C3 Howitzer; any word on what will replace it? Or what PRes Arty will evolve to?

Replace? Lol, we're out of the 105 game. The M777 and the LG1 will be shipped to Quebec and kept in long-term storage just in case they're ever needed.

The ARes won't be getting their own dedicated platforms. The RCA is moving to a unified concept of equipment. The ARes will train on what the RegF uses.

Depending on the specific unit, they will be taking on specialized capabilities like the new 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer, Long-Range HIMARS, or specific capabilities like VSHORAD, UAS Employment, or Target Acquisition.

For Artillery itself, a lot is going to be reliant on things like simulators, Augmented Reality, and other emerging technologies in place of having actual systems to train on. They lose out on SHORAD though. I think it's public, so if you're curious, here's the proposed list of where each ARes is being tied to.

Q17. More generally, with the large expansion of the Army PRes, any word on what the plan is for equipping them? Or how they're organized in the new army structure?

That is still an ongoing discussion. I know we've said it before, and it sucks not having much info, but the Defence of Canada is still something we're trying to figure out exactly what we need to do it. It isn't that we don't have concepts, but there is a general question on how best to equip the ARes.

For example, does the ARes need LAVs? Should they prioritize around their own vehicle, such as a dedicated APC? Should they maybe consolidate around being a lighter, more rapid force to better respond to potential situations, such as, say, prioritizing around a vehicle like the Senator?

What organic capabilities in strike, air defence, and armour do they need for defending Canadian sovereignty? What about CUAS? How far does that go?

What tasks take priority? The Arctic? LENTUS? What capabilities do we need to support both of those unique environments? There's a whole bunch of questions on the board, and right now there is no answer to give because the concepts are still being better refined under Army Mod.

So sadly, there is a lot in the open as to employment and capabilities. There isn't a universally accepted concept or answer to what it looks like. Hopefully, we get more of a concept soon, but for now, it's open.

Q18. On MEDCAV, the CAF is planning to equip 4 battalion-sized units (2 heavy, 2 Med); how are those expected to shake out between the three mechanized brigades?

1 CMBG gets the two heavy while 2 CMBG and 5 GBMC get 1 of the Medium each. Simple as that.

Q19. Appreciating that there are a lot of active procurement projects, looking ahead, are there any likely major projects for the "next" round that really stand out?

A bunch. AEWC is still on the table and now the Canadian Deep Sensing and EW Aircraft. There's also still NTACS, which will likely be the biggest for the next several years. Those three are likely to be the major aircraft procurements for the next few years, likely followed by an Airlift project. There's also a whole host of space projects like DESSP and the Space-Based Moving Target Indicator.

Navy has the Continental Defence Corvette and now the Arctic Mobile Base, maybe more JSS, and FAAST-V. They also got multiple UAS and USV projects ongoing that I think people will like. That's a pretty substantial list in itself.

Army, oh gosh, we got MCAV and HDFM now; we're going to have the Enduring Phase II and III GBAD projects. We have IFM still ongoing, and the Canadian Army Deep Uncrewed Aerial System Capability and Canadian Army Loitering Munitions Projects now too.

Land ISR Mod is a big one, same with Joint Fires Modernization. We have the broader Integrated Air and Missile Defence strategy. Honestly, there is so much going on, and so much in the works that it's hard to narrow down, lol. You could probably add about thirty projects to this 'Major' list and some would still argue it isn't enough.

So much cool stuff. So many things on the table. How can I narrow it down!

---

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

---

---