Let's Talk with Noah (06/12/26): Lots of Fighters, Munitions, USV, Confirming KSS-III Size, Volatus, VLS Again

Q&A

Happy Thursday!

Fifty Questions.

You guys absolutely blew it out of the water this week. I am actually stunned by the participation that we got, and can't speak enough to how engaged you all are the last two weeks!

I'm sorry for being late again this week. Between a kid with an ear infection, another dealing with an injured foot, submarines next week and a whole bunch of meetings, it's been absolutely crazy!

Because of that, I can't get to all fifty questions, so we're doing a split! First half will be today, and ill put out the other half Sunday/Monday. That seems fair to me! Apologies to those of you waiting longer, but I feel it was the best way to handle this. If this keeps up, might need to do 2 Q&A a week!

As always you can find the link to next weeks Q&A over here on Slido. I encourage you to ask as much as you like!

---

Q1. Are there any rumors on the RCAF possibly getting additional airlift airframes like the A400, C-390, or additional C-130Js?

So everyone recognizes that we have an airlift gap, a lift gap in general. Add sealift too. It isn't a secret. So there are ongoing conversations about what we could look for in the future, like what do we need? What are our actual gaps here? That isn't just asking about the 130s, it also applies to NTACS and such.

So there are conversations, but no projects and no actual plans that I know about yet. Maybe some people have some concepts somewhere? I'm sure there are concepts, but I have not seen them. I think that'll change sooner than later, but for now, it's mostly a bunch of talk, outside NTACS obviously, about what to do.

We can't get more C-17s, and lots of people think the 130s are getting too small. We have the 1st Division to support now as well in the expeditionary role. This really is the thing that makes this a bit hard, because a lot of what we will need is tied to Army Mod, so for the other branches, this becomes a team effort.

Like we're gonna have the All-Domain Defence Plan soon, so we ain't gonna have nothing to go off, but yeah, for now, it's a lot of talk.

Q2. Any update for the ATGM replacement program?

People are confident we're getting an RFI this year. It isn't on the army priorities list, so it's yet to be seen. We know it'll be either more SPIKE or Akeron because they're the only fifth-gen ATGM on the market. I prefer Akeron myself, but SPIKE, especially EuroSPIKE, is the standard.

So we'll see, but people expect something this year. I would love to see it.

Q3. With this amount of investment, there’s bound to be some failures. Any idea how the government / DIA plans to deal with those?

Unfortunately, those are high-level things beyond little ol' me. I think it'll be a learning experience, but also most of the people in the DIA are PSPC vets. They ain't coming from nothing. They've dealt with these before.

My hope is that we look at projects less as transactions and single successes and move to an incremental model where colossal failures can be mitigated through a more involved and long-term development process.

There are also mentality changes, where we have to perhaps accept solutions that might not be perfect, see Globaleye, but are enough for what we need, and then we can work through developing the capability we want, while ensuring we can be involved domestically in the developmental process.

That, at the end of the day, might mean not getting what we want right away, but it provides a safer approach to capability development, allows industry a better seat at participation, and keeps us involved in the development process where we can allow technology to progress and get, maybe in the third or fourth tranche, the capability we want.

Maybe such an approach could have saved LRSS, or at least given it a better chance at survival. The point is we have to explore outside the normal avenues, and I hope the DIA takes that. As for what happens if those fail? Then hopefully we can still be left with an 80% capability that is still good, but maybe not perfect over nothing.

Outside that? I don't think I can say. Better to have something than nothing. That's why so many people are on the agile hook right now lol.

Q4. Could you see us licensing 1-2 future CAF munitions (e.g. PrSM, Patriot?) for domestic production and commit to larger orders that build up NATO magazine depth?

I don't think you'll get PrSM or Patriot, but certainly, I think there is an avenue there. I have actually encouraged that, in the modern environment, you sometimes have to play favorites if it means securing that domestic supply.

If someone like MBDA comes up and is interested in offering that domestic source? Then yeah, I'm gonna prioritize their munitions, and let everyone else try to match. If you are that concerned about munitions, you either need to make it a requirement to bid on shit like ATGM or Enduring or find partners willing to do it and make the right choices.

In certain cases, that doesn't work, because the product you want is too niche, too much of a standard like AIM or NSM, or you're just too late to the party and missed out. Look to Australia here. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into it.

We also need to, of course, separate assembly versus production, the needed critical components to build the missile supply chain, etc. All of which are barriers to be broken. However, I do think it is possible. It just takes a lot of effort. Again, Australia has a missile strategy, put billions into it, and created an organization specifically to handle it. They put in that effort and got rewarded. We haven't and we've lost out.

Q5. With only 9 C-330s being procured for a multi-purpose role, is there any concern they could be tied up with other tasks when they are needed for refueling?

I have to be very careful about what I say here lol. So I gotta keep this short. The answer is yes, especially with the growing fleet through platforms like AEWC/CDSEA and the growing need for lift capacity.

Keep in mind, not all 9 of those are gonna be operating as MRTT... so numbers ain't exactly aligned. As a friend of mine pointed out, there are already more lines of tasking than Husky, and that is assuming all are operational, which is never the case.

So yeah, we need more, and people are talking about it a lot.

Q6. If the UK sandbags GCAP development, could Canada step up to help fill the UK's role? Could this affect the fighter review in favor of F-35s?

Sixth-gen has always been separate, and even then, the question about sixth-gen isn't just about if they're coming, but how we can participate more than we are now. Being involved in the F-35 isn't necessarily building a sixth-gen supply chain, nor is it necessarily building a foundation to go beyond our Tier-IV or III role. Neither is Gripen with how little we know so far publicly.

It could, and that is likely what the government wants, even if they apparently suck at communicating that to everyone according to the industry involved. The questions, though, remain there.

Does any fighter provide that? Is there a pathway to move up that ladder? That's the most important question the folks on the review are asking.

Right now we ain't prepared to fill that role industrially. Industry isn't there outside of tossing money at the problem. We could maybe throw a shit ton of money, but without that industrial component? We'll always be seen as a junior, and someone like Germany? Well... and if money is the big concern, the Saudis are still around to play the slots.

Sixth-gen isn't meant to be an F-35 savior. Depending on who's looking at the file, it might be the opposite....

Q7. RCD needs more VLS to counter saturation attacks, ballistic and hypersonic defense, to maintain combat endurance, and for mission requirements ASuW, AAW, and TLAM.

Everyone agrees, except Kyle.

Q8. Considering we are investing in Aegis, how can we not equip the RCDs with greater VLS magazine depth? As you stated, the CAF is trying to be more self-sufficient.

Luckily, the Navy agrees. No one, not one person in the Navy with authority is looking at 24 and giving a thumbs up and saying that's the end. 24 was the baseline of MK.41 available on the Type 26, and we made the choice to not go farther, because with everything else it would have taken time, caused delays, and pushed out the first delivery.

So the choice was made to sacrifice that first batch, because right now that delivery date is all that matters. Nothing else. The Navy will, and has, torn out any obstacle to that, and lots of times that ain't their fault. You got so many different people involved, so many layers... Navy, Irving, Lockheed, BAE. Then add outside suppliers, add integration risks, add a platform that is already trying to balance weight and space?

The choice for 24 wasn't the Navy saying good enough. It was them acknowledging the Halifax class are rotting out and won't last forever, and we've spent so long playing defense as a nuisance, and pushing things down the line, trying to rebuild a shipbuilding industry from near scratch... we need hulls in the water. Right now, a lot of things are falling on the AOPS, and that isn't good either, because they're meant to be up in the North, and we're already running them through hell because suddenly? They're the only solution we got.

The Navy made the choice to at least have Batch II as 24 as a sacrifice, not a choice. They want more, and are talking to BAE and Lockheed about it. They're trying to do more, but also it just isn't the focus right now. We're still finalizing the design of the first batch after all! Right now more cells is a future issue, but still recognized as an issue.

Q9. With the CBC reporting that the gov is looking towards 72-88 F-35s and 72 Gripens, I'm just wondering your take/have you heard anything?

The numbers they gave were bullshit. No one I know in the DIA or DND knows where they got those numbers. As far as I know, they're still investigating and trying to look for the best path forward.

I think the fighter review needs to ask what we want to do, like really want to do. It needs to ask the actual end goal of things. Is it jobs? Is it building a sixth-gen supply chain? Is it about the medium-term? Or is it focused on the 20-year horizon? All of which affect the review.

Because that end goal needs to be defined if you want to not only make a decision but to be able to talk to industry about what you want. I think we need to ask if what we have now, the position we're in, is where we want to be, and if not? Who is gonna take us to that next level? Who is the best partner to bring us to that long-term goal?

I haven't talked to everyone myself, so I can't judge who takes us there. I haven't talked well to Saab on fighters. I did talk a lot about the Carl G, though, and the RBS-70 simulator where they let you commit war crimes. I did talk to Lockheed, and got on the F-35 simulator and got to talk for a good half an hour there. I have heard their side, and I was surprised by all the plans they have here and some of the concepts of investment they have in Canada. I also was able to talk to some of the partners in the program who were excited for the opportunities on the horizon and see a path forward to move up the ladder on their own.

I can't speak to them, because I was told in confidence, but I have only heard one side so far, and even then, I still don't know fully what the end goal is.

So it is incredibly hard for me to sit here and preach about who is the best partner because it isn't fair for me to say that when I still have questions, and I still don't know what we want fully.

I have a good idea. I have a very good idea. I do think we're looking to go beyond that Tier-IV and Tier-III. I think we want to build up the amount of IP available to Canadian industry. I think we want to build an industry that isn't just a junior, a simple manufacturer. We want to build an industry that can be a partner, and the question will be who is best to do that? Who will open those doors, even if it means sacrifice at the beginning?

But that is my interpretation. That is how I piece the puzzle. I could be wrong, but I think I have it. Even then, it isn't fair for me to talk about this when I still have questions for Lockheed and Saab. I won't give an endorsement for anything before I have all the info I want and need before me, to the best of my ability. That isn't fair to either company or you guys.

So sadly, I am not prepared to speak of the path forward. I am sorry. I just don't believe I have all the information before me to tell you guys in the way and to the depth that you all expect of me. I want to give you the best analysis possible, and I refuse to give less. You guys deserve better than that. So right now? Sadly I have no answer to give.

Q10. With retention issues plaguing the RCAF, has there been any consideration to reestablish reserve fighter squadrons?

I have never heard of this idea. Sorry. If it has been discussed, it isn't among my group of friends or out there in anything official.

Q11. With CMAR signed and underway, any update for the future of the current stock of C7/8s?

Oh gosh, I don't think I have ever asked lol. I know at least some will be thrown in storage? I can't speak to the full plan, again never really thought to ask until you brought it up lol. Maybe some get donated to a partner? I'll ask next week around and see if I can find anything for the newsletter.

Q12. Have you heard any rumors or plans for a sovereign SIGINT constellation?

Not officially, but see how certain things play out. Certainly, there are some who would love it. I think we'll see it eventually, but there are other space priorities right now.

Q13. With the news around FCAS and GCAP this week. While politically viable for some, would the RCAF accept getting on board with FCAS or Saab's project over GCAP?

Sure. Right now GCAP is there because it exists, is farthest along, and aligns with Canada's broader strategic interests by aligning with key allies. That could change. There are no commitments, and the RCAF is still looking into things.

If another good opportunity presented itself? I'm sure there would be interest in exploring options and how we could contribute. A Saab/Airbus team-up, even if I don't expect it, would be a political goldmine for obvious reasons lol.

Q14. An article by RealClearDefense suggests the Hanwha bid for Canada is a scaled-down export version of 2,800 tons versus the domestic version. Can you confirm?

100% false. Never on the cards. Hanwha is offering the full Batch II.

Q15. Are there any plans for a "loyal-wingman" type USV concept to support the RCD that could provide additional VLS, MCM, or sensor capabilities?

There are talks about it, but they're in the early stages. We're taking a wait-and-see approach, where we ain't gonna be the ones leading on things. I wrote a lot about this the other week if you're curious, but MUSV/LUSV aren't fully there yet. There are still a lot of hurdles to still go through for them to be a viable concept as some envision. There is a desire to explore it, but its early stages and probably the lower end of the Navy's autonomous plans. UAS, UUV, and smaller USVs are more priority now.

Q16. How much potential do you see for Volatus Aerospace, a donor partnered with Ukraine to build drones in Canada for our own use and defense? Hadn’t heard of them.

I had a chance to talk to the folks at Volatus a lot at CANSEC. I think they have a great team, and I praise them for the amount of risk they've taken on and the amount of work they're putting in.

Almost no one in the scene has been as active as Volatus, and few have been as aggressive in developing their own integrated supply chain. Out of everyone, they are one of the few really trying to grab the brass ring so to speak and take the massive risks involved with scaling up to meet the projected demand the government has set out.

Will that work out for them? Hard to say. They're making a lot of big moves to position themselves as the people to go to not just for systems, but as a partner in getting into the Canadian UAS scene. At the same time, they are going very big, and that does carry significant risk if their ambition doesn't match expectations.

Time shall tell I guess, but I have lots of faith in them. They're trying hard, and that can sometimes be enough for now.

Q17. Has the Navy identified lessons from the AOPS coating performance? Will they update paint and corrosion-control to avoid heavy rust staining on the RCD?

I... don't know actually. I don't think I have ever asked. I can ask for you? Can't promise an answer, but if I ever asked, or was told, I forgot. I'm sorry!

Q18. How does it feel when you get the likes of Philippe Lagassé or Murray Brewster commenting on your work? Validating? Intimidating? Surreal? All of the above?

Yes, although both of them have always been very nice and supportive to me more than they've had to, so I have great respect for both of them and carry their words deeply. So I am always honored when they take time out of their days to be supportive.

Q19. Any news as to what is going to be done with the Cyclones?

Options are being explored. The feds have the Seahawk proposal on their desk; at the end of the day, any choice will be theirs. They have to execute on it. The Navy sees the Cyclone as a dead-end. They are not fans obviously, but anything in terms of replacement needs to be done by the feds.

Until then? We operate with what we have. Block 2.1 is rolling in, Maritime Helicopter Upgrade (MHU) is progressing. Gotta wait and see. Lots of people are confident.

Q20. While I concede it will likely end in a bizjet, could CDSEA end up being built on a platform like the A330, A220, or B737, if the proposal is good enough?

I mean, it definitely could. Nothing is really stopping it from being on any platform. Could be unmanned even. The project is still fairly early in development, and so there are still lots of options for other platforms and solutions.

We should be asking Fraser for his preferred platform, because right now he's the most experienced person we got here on the file lol.

Q21. Any word on the legislation for the DIA to become a real agency?

We wrote about it here. For reference, it's Bill C-31. Went through its second reading on the 3rd. Also going through the Senate, you can find their latest from the 10th here. Expected to pass so I ain't keeping the most track of it.

Q22. This argument about a mixed fleet doesn't make sense. We already have a mixed fleet. If simplification, why not choose Gripen for the FFLIT and Snowbirds?

Gripen is a bit much for FFLIT and Snowbirds, and itself is not a dedicated training platform outside of a niche few. Saab offers them in that role, but dedicated training platforms are cheaper to operate for this role, typically offer more commonality with allies, and allow for greater cooperation with NATO programs already existing.

Gripen itself is more than the fighter, always was. As we said above, it makes things a bit weird and difficult to discuss with how things are, and while you could operate Gripen in this role, it isn't the most cost-effective nor practical. You could, but I don't think it would be the best option for us at this time.

Q23. Could you see the GC/RCAF offering to procure a small number of Gripens for aggressor purposes to keep the economic side of SAAB's proposals alive?

I don't think so. Aggressor is something that others here do better, and the numbers likely acquired in such a case are likely not enough to justify. Not unless we're handling for the whole of NATO...

Q24. If Canada chooses the KSS-III, will they plan to acquire/deploy the Hyunmoo 4-4 SLBM as well? Or just the cruise missile option.

That's up to the Navy to decide. The option is there, but I have not heard on munition preferences. 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.

So on munitions I do not know, but there is interest in the munitions.

Q25. Did TKMS provide any insight on how they mitigate the risk of battery fires on their proposed sub for Canada?

I have not asked sadly, and as I know it the battery system has not been detailed yet. So I cannot comment on this.

---

As always you can find the link to next weeks Q&A over here on Slido. I encourage you to ask as much as you like!

---

---