Let's Talk with Noah (05/22/26): CDC CUAS, CANSEC Announcements, Public Shelters, PRes Exclusion, JSS

Q&A

Happy Friday

Officially the latest I have done one of these lol. Woth Korea and CANSEC prep, unfortunately we have had a bit of a messy schedule to deal with. That brings me to my next thing, because of CANSEC next week and the fact my Wife and I are using some days as a vacation, there will be no Let's Talk next week.

We will resume our regularly scheduled times again the week after, when I am fully back amd rested! This Week will continue as normal. This is mostly because I don't think I'll have time with everything going on. I will post a link next week that will have it up and available for questions.

---

Q1. Beyond the 155mm systems for IFM, are there any updates/rumors for the 120mm and 81mm systems?

Not much in this department. We know that the RCA is looking for an ACSV-integrated solution for the 120mm Mortar, meaning that we ain't looking for something like NEMO but more along the lines of Cobra, which GDLSC is offering with their submission, or Skyfall, which Hanwha is offering. Both are automated, turntable-mounted systems like the classical mounted 120mm mortars you know.

Both are fairly comparable, with some differences in how they advertise. Skyfall has a higher advertised rate of fire, Cobra has pure electric actuation, a few differences, yes; but essentially, both are open-hatch, semi-automatic, 120mm Mortar systems.

Canada's priority here is simple: cost. Cheaper, easier to integrate (or so some believe), more scalable in conflict, and more practical for a country that is looking for up to 99 such systems. Stuff like NEMO gets very complex and pricey very quickly with those numbers, and the choice between more systems with an 80% solution over fewer with 100%? It isn't looking great for the 100%.

Cobra and Skyfall are the two primary systems discussed. There is no mandate present for companies to provide all solutions, just that the 120mm must be integrated onto an ACSV. That obviously gives GDLSC an advantage, but not a guarantee.

That's about all I can say for those two at this moment.

Q2. Any indications that winners for projects like LUV will be announced at CANSEC?

These days there's usually always one, sometimes two, contracts or such announced. At least there's always a big announcement. It won't be LUV; that's still a few years out at current. CPSP is seemingly off the table, for the most part, which takes out the big one set for award around now.

Future Fighter-Lead-In-Trainer is set to announce its future platform soon. Sometime in May or June is what I heard? Land Vehicle Crew Training System is also set for an award really soon. Both hypothetically could be presented at CANSEC if all the cards line up right.

Those are my two leaders right now. Some others like some CHER could, if they wanted to really rush through, be announced, but sadly, and no offense, they don't feel CANSEC level. GBAD and LFE Phase II are out. Wild card, but if they wanted an absolute shocker of a move, then they could throw AEWC out there, but I have not heard anything, so it is highly, highly unlikely.

So there are a few standouts, but not a bunch on cards that I think could show up here and be major. FFLIT will definitely make controversy with the recent Snowbird stuff.

Q3. Any recent news in the AEW&C acquisition process? With Europe's acquisition and Buy Canada, I'd suspect the E-7 is a long shot. When might we see an RFI?

As I said above, if you wanna bet hard, we could come to see an RFI announced at CANSEC or something. RFI is very soon. Of the original DIA projects, AEW&C is basically the last one left, and yes, as I have most recently heard, an RFI is planned to happen, but a GlobalEye sole source isn't off the table.

E-7 isn't as long a shot as you think. The RCAF wants it, and that means something. The U.S. is also flipping back on it, though NATO ditching it will remove some prestige it has. Not all, mind you, but some.

The RFI should be very soon though, absolutely. That might paint a better picture of direction and plans.

Q4. The Nordic model for public shelters and emergency facilities is very interesting. What is the likelihood of the DIA trying to emulate them as part of Sup Res?

There's interest in that kinda stuff; the CAF certainly is looking hard at partners like Finland and Sweden when looking at a whole-of-society approach to defense. As for adopting the Nordic model? I don't think so. Not to the extent of being similar, at least.

We face a very different strategic environment, threat nexus, and challenges compared to our Nordic partners when it comes to civil defense and such. Shelters might play a role, but I don't think they'll be to the scale, extent, or style of Nordic partners.

We don't have the exact same civil concerns as our Nordic partners, nor the same concerns as it pertains to, say, the potential proliferation of adversarial strike munitions, the threat of existing ground-based strike systems, nor the threat of domestic incursion.

All of which play a big role in the Nordic strategic mentality that we don't necessarily have as much concern in. Emergency facilities? Absolutely. Same with emergency power generation, protected critical infrastructure, and similar.

Canadian Civil Defence might be more focused, for example, on infrastructure concerns over civil protection. It might be that emergency facilities are geared more towards handling disruptions in infrastructure, power, etc., over things like mass casualties and civil protection.

There is certainly a lot we can learn; however, we need to care not to outright copy too much, or take lessons too hard to heart. For a country like Canada, where despite everything we do face a very unique set of circumstances and realities, we do need to take care to remember this before jumping on ideas.

Learn, but always keep these things in mind in conversations.

Q5. Do you see an opportunity for foreign designers to partner with Canadian yards for the CDC? The Navantia Alfa 3000 would be a terrific design to emulate.

The navy would not prefer it, and the Navy's own set of requirements are so unique, with the long-range, endurance, and ice strengthening, that most would likely struggle to qualify. The navy would prefer a Canadian design. They have made zero attempts to hide that.

Similarly, the major competitors' current standings, like Vard/Ontario, Davies, Seaspan, and Irving, are all looking at their own designs. The one up in the open is Irving. I don't fully know what their plan is, or if they might leverage a foreign design that is Canadized.

Kongsberg and Vanguard could likely fit the requirements, and have the CCG contract to make a case for it. That's maybe the one foreign design that could jump in there? Most others, Alfa, Gowind, etc., just don't check all the boxes as they exist.

Three of the four on this list are looking at their own designs, and a smaller, medium yard outside Ontario is unlikely. One could show up maybe, but I don't think so. I think this will be a very Canadian competition.

Q6. For the CDC and close-in defense, do you envision the navy going with a 25-35mm CIWS or RIM-116 system, plus a 57mm main gun? Any word on anti-drone systems?

I think RIM-116 is very likely. Commonality with the Rivers and all that jazz. It is also just a better system for something like CDC compared to something like Phalanx. Then yeah, add a Bofors 57, I think.

I have not heard of anything else specifically anti-drone. We could see a 30mm gun like the MK38 thrown on there as well for a lower, last-ditch layer. That is also certainly on the cards potentially.

CDC has a mandate for UxS, in that the intent is to operate CDC as an autonomous-heavy platform. With that in mind, I would love to see CDC experiment with things like drone-on-drone countermeasures. Asty has the MARSS NiDSR that utilizes ramming drones to tackle Group I-III UAS. That could be something cool, cheap, and low SWAP that could be integrated into CDC for another base level of protection.

I'm also looking at if CDC gets something like LEED, the next-generation successor of NULKA, with the Rivers getting it. That might be a bit much for a platform like CDC, but it could be an option.

LEED aims to provide a long-endurance, soft-launch decoy system able to be equipped with a number of modular, advanced payloads to counter modern AShM threats. While the current focus is on EW payloads and countering AShM missiles, there is a bit of an expectation that LEED will become a universal launch system able to be equipped with a number of payloads to potentially engage a multitude of threats.

The system will provide combatants with an affordable, autonomous countermeasure offering extended flight endurance over NULKA, with a hovering capability of at least an hour on station. There is also talk about potential recoverable payloads, though there is little information on it.

LEEDS has a lot of potential, I feel, to be a multispectral, universal countermeasures system that could support non-kinetic and maybe kinetic CUAS capabilities. That could be a potential fifth option, fourth? Maybe both? All? Who knows. It is there though, and we will be utilizing it in the future.

So right now things are a bit up. I would like CDC to be experimental, in that they try to play around and take unique approaches we might not take with something like the River-class. The potential is there though.

Q7. Awhile back you commented the RCN should acquire more JSS before considering acquiring a GLAAM type platform. Do you still agree with that assessment?

Yes, but it seems we might be in a timeline where both could be an option, lol. That wasn't something I really expected, but the convo is serious. Either way, JSS are more versatile platforms that would provide far more usability to the fleet compared to AMB.

AMB could be great too, but it exists to fill primarily a niche, specific role. No AMB will replace the core functions of a JSS outside the Arctic. It's a function of their design that they are optimized for the Arctic environment, especially at PC 2 as some want.

They are different vessels though, with overlapping but also different mandates. It isn't a 1:1 comparison. If I had to make a specific choice of 2 more JSS or 2 AMB? It would still be the JSS. You can do a lot with the JSS, in a hull better suited for 90% of the waters we would operate in.

Both would be sick as hell though.

Q8. With today's announcement of replacing the Snowbird Tutors with PC-21s... any info on how many extra planes they will order (hopefully a few spares)?

Afraid not. That is something I do not know, because honestly, I didn't expect it to be the option chosen, so in my ignorance, I never really dived into it as an option. Like everyone else, I expected the feds to tell the RCAF to deal with it and use whatever we chose for FLIT.

Q9. Could they/would they be able to use the VLS space on the KSS-III to extend its range? Specifically batteries and AIP, but also stores and diesel, I assume.

Yeah, it's been offered. If you don't want the VLS, you could do lots. You could downsize to something like the Ocean 2000, add a multipurpose lock for divers/autonomous systems, add more battery storage, or expand things like the hydrogen stores.

Yeah, it's been offered before if you don't want the VLS. There are options on the table, lol.

Q10. Has there been any discussion around mobile shore-based NSM launch systems? Or is there too much overlap with PrSM's capability?

PrSM is the land-based focus. NSM doesn't quite have the ranges we want, considering we want to cover vast distances across places like the Labrador Sea or Archipelago.

It just isn't really seen as a value when you also have a LRASM/NSM equipped Air Force and the RCN. PrSM provides an anti-ship capability at the distances we want, in a package we can work with, and it's good enough for us to handle the surface threats we think we might need to contend with.

Aussies have a rampant PLA to worry about. We don't, as an example. Europeans can work fine with the range of a truck-mounted NSM. It can work for them. Us? Not as much. We ain't island hopping, and we ain't got much use for something significantly shorter-ranged than PrSM.

It just ain't really it.

Q11. With all the talk of new vehicles, I'm hearing a lot of skepticism from some nominally armoured PRes units that they will ever see new vehicles. Thoughts?

Valid, because the PRes often isn't included in the conversation, especially when their primary focus is leaning towards Defence of Canada and as a mobilization platform. Look at the current RCA doctrine, where quite a few were upset by how much focus is on simulators and alternative training over actually getting on the guns.

That sentiment, I find, is universal. We hear talk of a 'Reserve APC' and we see projects like ACV-W that are looking at total war scenarios, but those are all just hypotheticals—hypotheticals with no promise of happening, for a reserve that is still trying to figure out what Defence of Canada means for equipment and doctrine.

Army Mod is out, but it isn't done. There are many loose ends open, and many things undecided. It's a gradual, incremental process, which isn't bad, mind you. It always would be, but for the PRes? They ain't there yet. They're still in a weird purgatory of what their future looks like.

Hopefully, that isn't long-term, but we just don't have all the answers yet to say.

Q12. While the CT-157 is a great aircraft and probably the right choice for the Snowbirds, was there a reason it was chosen over the future FLIT airframe?

I won't say everything, not right now, because I don't wanna get folks in shit, and because it ain't my story to tell. All I will say is that the RCAF does not want it. They have not wanted it. They really don't care about aerobatic display teams.

The Snowbirds have been struggling. People don't wanna join. They're struggling to keep the people they do have, and the air force really doesn't wanna sacrifice the limited fighter pilots they have to them.

Those are pilots, needed pilots, that could be better off elsewhere to them. They are pilots needed as the future fighter comes online and beyond it. Pilots take years to train and are multi-million dollar investments. The RCAF, evidently, doesn't wanna do all that on an already strapped force to do display shows.

The 157 was a compromise. Make no mistake about that, and it wasn't the feds fighting for it. That's such fucking bullshit because, like, why would the feds start that fight? Why? You think people don't know the shit that would cause anyways?

Like, I don't care at this stage either way. Turboprops have come a long way since the Tutor. The PC-21 is a great aircraft. I'm personally mostly fine with it.

Like... I'm not ranting at you, person who asked. You ain't who I'm calling out. It's just like, there is a political aspect in how the feds work with the RCAF. There is always diplomatic capital to be managed between departments, higher and lower levels of government, etc.

No one sat with Cabinet and said, "Let's fuck the Snowbirds." No one just made this choice on a whim, or to be cheap. They had FLIT as a likely option for a long-ass time. It's just how the inevitable compromise between everyone, taking into account everyone's status, thoughts, and feelings, played out.

There is no guilty party, only people who have valid, competing worries and things they wanna do. So we found a solution that keeps everyone happy for the most part.

Q13. Are we interested in medium-altitude, long-endurance drones for surveillance, particularly the Turkish drones mentioned in Turkish news?

Yes. We have been talking of replacing/supplementing the Blackjack with projects like the Canadian Army Deep Uncrewed Aerial System Capability. ONSF sets the mandate out for the CAF to explore new options for expanded surveillance and strike drones.

All of these are very early stages, but we are looking at the market, what's available, and what kind of partnerships might be available in the future to rapidly acquire both new capabilities and expanded production capacity in the autonomous space.

We don't know what exactly that looks like yet, nor do we have a concrete plan for what this entails. What we do have is that mandate to explore, and explore we are. Turkish drones have proven themselves capable, conform to NATO standards, are affordable, and on the Turkish side of things, they've been very open and collaborative about potential cooperation down the line, including joint developments and localized production.

So yes, it is an option, but one of many explored in these early stages.

Q14. How many ACSVs have now been delivered to the Army, and did the ACSV donations to Ukraine negatively significantly impact the Army's readiness?

Around 130 last time I checked? Been a while though, so it is likely a bit higher now. We plan to start picking up on deliveries as the Electronic Warfare and Command Post variants come into service. Those should be done by mid-2027. After that, we have the Fitter Cargo Vehicle, MRT, and Engineer variants left to do.

Donations to Ukraine have not seriously affected timelines nor readiness. There was a slight rescope when first delivered, obviously, but it is no longer a concern as we ramp up deliveries. Neither is the LAV we donated, as those are coming from the failed LRSS project, which was done either way.

Basically, deliveries are starting to go good, Ukraine hasn't seriously damaged anything, and we're now looking at the next phases of our armoured vehicle procurement.

Q15. What do you think/hope will be the next 3 major procurement announcements and when?

I spoke about this above, but the next on the list are likely FFLIT, LVCTS, and Subs. In what order? I don't know, but all have an option downselected for what they want AFAIK. All have Q2 timelines. All three are major projects, and I'll be very happy to see them done.

I would also love to see a new LAV contract, but that feels less likely right now. That feels like a later contract to see. Maybe a CHER bundle comes in, but right now, surprisingly, we have much more set for the late summer/fall than right now.

---

There will be no let's Talk next week

---

---