Let's Talk with Noah (06/17/26): Fighters Again, GBAD, Logistics Vehicles, Diversification, C-17, TAPV, NtACS
Q&A
Happy Wednesday!
You guys absolutely blew it out of the water AGAIN this week. Forty Questions, plus a few from last week, almost 7000 words. I am once again awe inspired by how engaged all of you are with the Q&A!
Sadly though we do have a few questions we didn't get too. Remind me and I will do them this weekend, promise! Y'all just gotta remind lol. I think we need to do something though. These are getting very big for one Q&A. If I did the rest, this would near 9000 words!
Maybe split it up? Two a week? That might be the needed thing. I am open to ideas. Maybe I do a proper podcast with a few of the questions every week! That would be fun wouldn't it? What do you guys think?
Q1. The rumors and discussion around rebuilding or restarting C-17 production have been around for years. Is there any reason to believe recent discussion is serious?
Not really. The USAF is looking into things, and the Americans have interest, but this same thing pops up every year and rarely makes any progress outside a weekend headline. The USAF plans to replace the C-17 and C-5 with a new aircraft through the Next Generation Airlift (NGAL) project before 2040.
There is demand for it. People want more C-17s, but the process to get things up and production started again is just too significant for many to justify the cost needed. Certainly, we would love more C-17s. We would love to triple or quadruple the fleet. We're running the current fleet hard, and they're getting worn out faster than anticipated. They won't last forever, and they're in so much demand that we would be pressed hard in a conflict with current capacity.
So we would love some, but I don't really see it happening anytime soon. If it did, though, absolutely the CAF would be throwing the credit card down and begging TB for more. I just don't see it. Better to look at other ways to expand our lift capacity.
Q2. With most or all of CDC concepts having a mission bay, could that lead to the River Class dropping the mission bay in place of more VLS?
No, because both the CDC and River-class have reasons for their mission bay, and it is the same around. Futureproofing, growth room, the ability to rapidly onboard capabilities, autonomous systems, etc.
There is a reason why the mission bay is becoming a universal phenomenon for most combatants. We have talked almost weekly on the mission bay, at least twenty times. The answer always remains the same. Having that growth space, and the rapid advancement of containerized and autonomous systems, is an advantage and layer of capability most vessels won't give up easily.
The River-class lacks growth room for future capabilities and systems outside the mission bay. Give up that mission bay and you essentially lock that in for the next thirty or forty years. The Navy believes that technology is advancing at such a pace that such a decision can't be made lightly, because we don't know what will be around in the next decade or two.
The short answer is CDC changes nothing there in the Navy's eyes.
Q3. Would RCAF actually accept a 4th+ gen fighter like the Gripen when pilots and all actually want the F-35? Also, Saab is already having issues with meeting orders.
Pilots will be upset, and the RCAF wouldn't be happy from my own talking around. I won't elect to speak on those matters because it isn't my space to talk. It isn't my story. I don't feel I have the right to speak on behalf of folks like the RCAF on this matter. I can speak on those I have talked with, though, recognizing that it is not a universal statement, nor am I declaring it fact.
In this case, the pilots in this scheme, as the government believes, are important but only one interest group of the grander equation. Saab's capacity is actually one of the things working in their favor, lol. If we order significant numbers of F-35s, as far as the feds are concerned, that lack of capacity is an opportunity to them.
How do they see it? That means there is room to expand, and the message remains that Sweden doesn't have the capacity that Saab needs domestically to expand at the scale they need. That has been conveyed, and Canada is one of the key countries that Saab and the Swedish government consider to be a prime spot for collaboration and expansion.
If you read the TKMS article, a lot of that mentality is present here too. Especially with the Global being the baseline for GlobalEye, that creates pathways. So the capacity isn't as much of an issue for the feds as one thinks. That isn't their mentality.
They see it as an opportunity, and that mentality is where that roadblock is. Two different parties who have two very different mentalities of priorities and measurements will always lead to tension.
Q4. Any updates on the remaining ACSV variants being pushed to CA?
So the Command variant started delivery in August. Around 130 to 140 ACSVs across the board have been delivered, with the remaining Command, Electronic Warfare, and Maintenance variants to be delivered by the end of 2027. That's the current plan.
Final Qualification on the Fitter/Cargo, MRT, and Engineering has begun last I heard. So deliveries overall are going great and things are moving as planned!
Q5. Will the rumored purchase of 30 F-35s drastically change how the RCAF wanted to organize the squadrons? Whatever squadron flying the F-35 as the expeditionary?
I mean, who said the F-35 would be expeditionary? A lot of people have that in their mind, but that probably ain't what's gonna happen in any split-fleet case. Anyways. 30 aircraft would be a single large squadron. We will very likely go beyond 30 airframes no matter what the final review says.
How would the RCAF organize a mixed fleet? I can't say. It depends in this case on the final number of Gripens. The truth is likely a lot more boring than many think in 99% of cases. That F-35 squadron would be in Cold Lake if you're curious, if that is like a shock to anyone. Bump it up to 48 and you could get two of 15. That COULD be a potential number to work with here if you want a Noah guess.
That 30 number, though, is bullshit.
Q6. "Diversification is good when it makes sense... That is my metric." Then which areas do make sense to you if the US builds the best of everything?
"Makes sense" does not mean the best equipment. In fact, I have been one to argue at times against the high-end, again where scalability, capability, and domestic benefit cross together. That's where we get the concept of the 80% solution.
When diversification makes sense is when there are potential options available. That requires that certain capabilities need to be available to do what we want, in the timelines we need, at the scale required to maintain advantage over adversaries.
You don't replace the SPY-7/Aegis combo with anything like it. It isn't there in the timelines we need, and it is what I consider a capability that is so above and beyond most things on the market, that it makes sense to stick with it over trying to shoehorn in a less capable European option.
HIMARS is a similar case. The Army had requirements, and only one platform fit it. Is there another C-130 transportable option with a potential anti-ship capability past 500 km?
We can argue if those requirements are needed. I myself have, but that raises the question on if you're arguing the Army is wrong from a capability standpoint, or if you're just saying it because it isn't what you want. Online especially, you'll find lots of the second option.
This isn't a case of who was better. If you wanna argue the Army should lose out and sacrifice in this case? You can, but that is the argument you make here. It is up to folks to make the argument, though.
There are lots of areas to diversify. HDFM, MCAV, GBAD, AEWC as we have seen, nTACS, the Continental Defence Corvette where things are a lot more open, even Gripen you can make that diversification argument. Diversification when it makes sense isn't hunting for the best, but it is an acknowledgment that there are certain capabilities where that isn't possible, and the federal government, CAF, and everyone recognized that.
The opportunities are there, a whole freaking bunch. In fact, on lots of projects it can make sense to sacrifice capability for investment and development. That isn't gonna be everything, though, and that's just what happens sometimes.
We, and our European allies, fell behind and now we're feeling the consequences. We can scream and cry about it, or we can accept it and work on catching up. Capability now can't rely on concepts of people who are only jumping in now, though. That is just how it is sometimes.
And I acknowledge your mentality. I get it. We need to move to a collaborative model where we accept losses of capability, competitions, and timelines at times to ensure Canada can help build up the defence industrial base, spur investment, and secure intellectual property.
You know, SOS Fuhr, and I can't remember where, has a great mentality of this same thing. He lists it as Partner, Customer, Hostage. We want to be a partner, always. We want to have sovereign control, have a stake in development, and work collaboratively with allies to develop capability. That is the long-term goal and outlook.
Below that is Customer, where we just buy a product and move on. There might be some benefit there. We might do something like ISS here, and industry might have some participation, but fundamentally we are a customer of a product whose role ends when we take delivery.
Then there is Hostage. This is the place that many concern themselves with, and an area where we have historically struggled. This is where the supplier retains near full control of a product, and fundamentally the relationship. They maintain the leverage, maintain the right to dictate terms, and we are locked in to following.
I think it is a wonderful inclusion to such discussions, because I think it paints a lot of the current mentality sort of working in the feds and DIA. I think there is lots of value in understanding these kinds of frameworks and the mentalities that are driving them.
You never want to be a hostage. You can survive fine being a customer. Both of those tend to go hand in hand. A customer relationship can turn into a hostage, and vice-versa, though rare. Cyclone, the Leos, and TAPV are examples of what the feds view as hostage situations.
Hostages don't always mean the relationship is bad or struggling. It does indicate, though, that we have little control. The F-35 is an example I would use of a customer situation that could turn to a hostage position, which we are trying to rectify bits and pieces of, including as part of the review.
Partnerships, though, are where we want to be, and to that, I can agree it is an aspiration to aim for if there is a solid plan and roadmap. Collecting IP just to collect is meaningless. It does nothing. So are partnerships that exist only with short and medium-term goals laid out.
The point I'm making is that sometimes you don't get a choice. Sometimes there are situations you just have to be in as a middle power that you have to acknowledge you are the hostage in, and work either long-term to fix or to find partners in. That still does not replace capability now, and we need lots of things on a very fast timeline.
I would love to live in a world where we could always be partners, and produce all our own goods here. That sadly doesn't exist, and instead of chasing every dream, we need to know where to fight and where to accept and regroup down the road.
Q7. Is the base at Latvia going to become the new Lahr? Is that a good thing / bad thing? (Hello Gripen)
I don't think so. I don't think it will be that large and significant. We are at a critical stage for a lot of people; between a new fleet mix, Army Mod, and the United States pulling back from Europe, we are expected to step up and do a lot more for our allies.
Do I think we need to dust off the plans? No. I think we need to do something, but that might not be returning to what we know. I think it could look very different from what we've done before, and in the modern climate, I think it is both fair and needed to be asked.
That could be a more dispersed, diverse Canadian involvement in Europe. I would argue it should, over the Cold War mentality many have. That's just me, but I don't think it starts and ends in Latvia.
Q8. Any update on the Cormorant upgrade? Is it progressing well? Do we see a few more aircraft added to the program?
It hit some snags; there were lots of worries about supply chains, which still exist right now. I can't speak in detail to exacts, it's not my place, but production has started! It took a lot to get there, both replicating Yeovil and getting IMP folks transitioned. They've been deliberately taking things delicately.
We should be seeing the first test flights of the newly upgraded 149 in a few months; the simulators will be delivered shortly, and training is set to begin.
It hasn't been easy getting to this point. Leonardo and IMP will both tell you that. They've both been trying to get things up and running, and it was very tense at one point, but I don't see that now. I see two happy companies who tell me progress is going great, people are getting into the flow, and they're gonna be showing that off shortly more to the public.
We've talked about this lots before. There is always demand for more, lol. The RCAF is considering it, but it requires those in authority to give the green light. We want to get Griffons out of the role, and there is demand. It is not official yet, just a heavy desire, but it is there and IMP/Leonardo are ready to further expand if asked.
Q9. Noah, your work is fantastic. Is TNSR your primary job? If not, how do you balance your time between this site and whatever else you have on the go?
It is as of only this month, actually, since we decided to allow sponsorships. I closed out a few clients I was doing at my previous work and am moving to this full-time. It is a full-time job for me. I spend about 40-50 hours a week on TNSR, sometimes more. I couldn't balance it anymore, and I make a great living off the site now.
So you can all be confident in knowing this now gets my full attention, which is why some of you have noticed a good uptick in opinions and more content, like RFI coverage. That is the stuff we can do when I have time to dedicate to writing, lololol.
Hopefully, that also means a few more fun things and traveling!
Q10. The USAF has Boeing investigating new C-17 production for itself and with interest from several allied air forces. Is the RCAF one of the interested air forces?
See above.
Q11. Where do you feel the Gripen would be based if the CBC report happens? With the F-35s? Reactivate Shearwater/Ottawa? Other bases like Goose Bay/Comox? New ones?
Cold Lake, Bagotville, and just to see if the rumor spreads for my own amusement, Hamilton. Realistically, expanding to new facilities on any sort of permanent basis means a lot of investment in ground-based infrastructure, techs, more pilots, etc.
Some things are interchangeable between platforms, but not as much as many believe. Modern fighters, even a Gripen with her advertising, require an entire backend of supporting infrastructure and personnel that don't exist now, and what does exist is concentrated in two places.
That is sadly what consolidating does across the board. Once you give stuff up, it is hard to get it back, and to get it to where it was? It requires a lot of time and money.
Q12. With Topshee taking over as VCDS, can you explain this new role and how he might shape it? Do you see any big changes in the Navy?
The easiest way I can explain the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff role, and some of you can give your own definitions, is that the VCDS is the floor manager to the CDS's store manager. The VCDS is the person more involved in the day-to-day business of the CAF.
The CDS is focused on the strategic vision, providing advice to the government, managing international relationships, and setting the long-term vision of the CAF. The VCDS is the person who executes that on the organizational level. They are the one who turns that vision into capability, leads on force development, and coordinates between the branches. They are, again, the one who leads the day-to-day administrative apparatus of the CAF.
That's probably the simplest way I could describe it to someone uninitiated. It is a fantastic role for someone like the Vice-Admiral, who has shown that he can both develop a comprehensive vision and execute on it. VCDS puts him right in the center of procurement in ways beyond even the CDS. The VCDS chairs the Defence Capability Board, co-chairs on the Programme Management Board, and ultimately manages the project approval process.
CRCN Charlebois is also well-positioned to lead and continue on the Navy's historic revitalization. He led the charge on a lot of the current files as the Director General Future Ship Capability, and is coming from his stint as Deputy Commander. I won't speculate at this time on what these shifts mean for the Navy specifically, but I do believe that the current trend we see will continue in a positive direction.
Q13. Is it worth keeping the TAPVs around? Would it be better to sell them as LUV comes online, rather than investing more money to shoehorn them into usefulness?
They're the best the Res has available right now, and even once LUV comes into service, it won't serve to replace that capability. The PRes is undergoing its own review of what capabilities and force structure it needs to take part in the defence of Canada.
There is no guarantee that LUV will provide a platform of similar size or capability to TAPV at this stage. The LUV Phase II team doesn't know what exactly it wants. That ain't a secret. They're still trying to figure out what exactly they're looking for.
For now, as the reasonable future, TAPV is what is available, and it is what we will likely go into a conflict with in the next decade. So making sure they provide the capabilities we need, even if it might seem strange or wasteful, is the option we need to work with. Evidently, that is looking like a new LCav configuration for at least 300 of them.
It isn't what I would do. I would rather have a fuckton of different Senators and such running around. I am not a TAPV lover, but this is the current state of affairs. We can't fight a war off dreams.
Q14. With Vard's new CDC video on YouTube based on the Vard 105, do you think the RCN's requirements for the CDC have stabilized, or are they still changing?
Some things ain't set, but we have a general idea, and for most, that is good enough for now. We have a general idea of the Mini/Megafax concept. Some things on the most technical level remain, but we are firmly in that Light/Pocket Frigate concept now that I don't see much changing from this point on.
A few things, maybe, but not a massive shift like CMMC to CDC. What we saw at CANSEC and from Vard is likely gonna stay as the general concept for CDC moving forward.
Q15. Will DAME be armed at all? i.e., pintle mount or an RWS?
DAME will continue to be unarmed for the foreseeable future. No changes there. People often forget that DAME will not provide combat vehicles. They are tracked utility vehicles that are intended to never leave Canada. They move people and things from point A to point B, sometimes support medical evacuations, and a few will act as C2 platforms. That's it.
The value of arming them is minimal, non-existent in that role. There is zero reason unless you hate polar bears or something. They will never, unless we really fuck up to the 10th degree, run into an adversary where they will need to have the advantage of an RWS.
Q16. There are reports out of Germany that they're considering the Global 8000 for a new electronic warfare aircraft. Any details on that?
I have seen them, but I don't have details. Sorry. I did ask Bombardier, who, to defence, didn't seem confident in the 8000 finding support for militarization when I talked at CANSEC. I did ask some things but have not heard back yet.
It is possible to do so, just as we discussed before, but not really seen by many as practical. The Germans have evidently decided that extra endurance is worth it. A 6500 does the job in 99% of cases, has already gone through the militarization certifications, and has the history and development to back it up. The 8000 here would be starting from scratch. It isn't the same as the 6500. It uses different composites, utilizes a true fly-by-wire system. There's just a lot. It is an expensive development, especially if you're first in line.
Add AAR? It will be tough for the 8000 to break out. I can't say whether it is true or not. I am not connected to the German defence space as much as others. I am curious to see, though, if they execute and how they do it.
Q17. Are there any plans for the RCAF's future MQ-9B fleet or Transport Canada's Hermes 900 to be used to monitor Canada's wilderness for wildfires during peak season?
I have not heard of any such plans. Sorry. If they exist, then they have not been open about them, nor has anyone else. It is not within scope and honestly? Not the best use of these assets, nor the best way to monitor wildfires that we have available.
Q18. Why do Army projects seem to be lower priority than all the major wins the Navy and Air Force seem to be racking up? Will Big Army come out the loser in this?
One has to remember that the Army spent the last two years developing their modernization strategy, and is still working on cementing it. The Air Force under Kenny was very proactive in force development and advocating for investment.
The Navy has done great for CPSP, but most of their projects are still unfunded. The Army got ERC, LVM, HIMARS. They haven't gotten no wins. It's just a lot of things took a backseat to reorganization and planning for that.
That took a lot of institutional effort and capacity, but still, the Army managed to get RFIs out for GBAD, IFM, UGV, MCAV, and HDFM. We've got a contract for CMAR. There is progress, just slow. It's still there, though. I can understand feeling like the Army is to the side of the conversation, but a lot of that is communication over actually being behind on things.
Q19. Is there room for us to collaborate as a major partner on the 6th-gen programs like GCAP/SCAF, or will our contributions be more like loyal wingmen and the like?
We've lost out a lot, and as we established last week, the value of Canadian industry now to sixth-gen programs is mainly in the Tier-II and Tier-III roles. GCAP has cemented its partners, and we have little to offer Airbus or Dassault.
That doesn't mean we can't be a partner. CCA is a great example where we could realistically contribute. The problem is, we are coming very late to the game where people have locked in, and we haven't supported an industry that can really do much independently on a sixth-gen. It ain't impossible, but it is also very unlikely at this stage that we move into any program as a major partner over a junior partner who helps support the supply chain and participates in secondary programs like CCA or software.
Q20. Do you think the dive tenders will share a common yard, or just a common design and each be built on the coast they will operate on?
With only two planned, even being on separate coasts, I feel only one yard will get the contract. I don't think we'll see a split for one vessel each. Not really efficient or cost-effective.
Q21. 42+ medium lift helicopters for nTACS doesn't seem like enough - also the economies of scale don't make sense if 427 gets 60s and nTACS gets something else.
Bold to assume CANSOFCOM cares about economics. I jest, but keep in mind that those numbers are a minimum as I understand it, not a set "these are what we want". As always, talking numbers before an RFI is great at giving us a sense of what is desired, but should never be treated as cemented. Even RFIs shouldn't be, really.
Those medium-lift helicopters, though, would be supplemented by the existence of Phase I of nTACS, plus a widely expanded Chinook fleet, potentially more than double the current fleet. Then there is the potential, as above, for Cormorant expansion still.
For a long time, there was a debate on if medium-lift was even needed. There were quite a few who would have preferred something smaller, more scalable, and cheaper like the H145M. Evidently, that idea didn't win out.
Funny enough, such a scenario puts us in a similar numbers region, less on Chinooks, to the RAF plans. Although that's me saying that with the 42 NMH order assumed. The numbers ain't as off from others' discussions as one might think.
We will have a very diverse fleet, though. Can't argue that, lol. Economy of scales? Not nTACS, at least not how you think, but I can't speak on that yet.
Q22. On the Victoria modernization discussions. Do you know if the plan would be to modernize all vessels or just the most functional?
All four are included in VCM, even if some like Chicoutimi are never getting deployed again, they are still included.
Q23. Beyond the handful (might still only be one) of Oceansled Ranger USVs, does the CCG have other plans for USVs or UUVs?
I know they have concepts? But sadly this isn't an area I am connected to. I don't actually know many folks in the CCG. Moving to the defence team helps, and I know there are plans, but my knowledge of the juicy details is limited. I'm sorry.
They definitely want to do more, and it is likely the area they are best positioned to support when it comes to maritime security, acting as motherships for various autonomous systems. I think we'll hear a lot in the coming years, but again, I sadly can't give the deets.
Q24. Is Armatec offering the 6x6 G-Wagon?
As far as I know, yeah. Would help if they didn't exist in some weird void.
Q25. Can you give an update on the increased numbers for Heavy, Light Trucks, and ERC?
So for ERC, the number is 133 last I asked. Options were exercised but not for the whole topline. For Zetros, the numbers don't really exist.
There is a project for additional logistics vehicles on the books, as well as a wider MSVS MILCOTS recapitalization and logistics vehicle recapitalization.
MILCOTS is already past its end of life, and SMP is EOL in 2028 if my timelines are correct? Both are gonna be up for replacement. There are also talks of lighter logistics vehicles in the Class 5/6 category for the Reserves, but that's more water cooler talk.
So we do have a lot for logistics vehicles on the books, for those of you interested. They're almost all a few years off, though. They're long-term plans.
Q26. Whatever happened to that rumour of nTACS considering a path of more Chinooks + attack helicopters and no medium lift Griffon replacement?
It was examined as an option and lost out. That plan was for a lighter helicopter like the H145M. Instead, we went with attack helicopter + medium-lift + more Chinooks. It's as simple as that.
Originally, nTACS was running a copy of FARA and FLRAA, but FARA getting cancelled and some large hesitation to the MV75 among the CAF basically sent plans back to the drawing board over the summer and fall. The light helicopter option just ended up not winning out.
Q27. I still see TKMS as the superior hunter/killer especially for the Atlantic/Arctic. Economies of scale Germany/Norway. Strategic LR weapons on the horizon.
Why do you see it that way? I am curious. I think in the Arctic especially, there is A LOT we could get into. Gosh. I should like rush-write a piece on that, lol. You wanna get deep? We can talk about the corrosive-resistant nature of non-magnetic steel, we can talk about if the smaller size of the 212CD is an inherent advantage. We can talk lots, lol. Give me your arguments! I wanna debate it now.
Q28. Loved your commentary on the Vard CDC article, especially “pocket” frigate. Made me think of the pocket battleship Graf Spee. Sounds like an RFI end of year?
That's the plan! But also, RFIs never go to plan. Never. That's just God's will or something. So maybe? The Navy would definitely love to get it out this year if they can. I would love to see it!
Q29. Are there any updates on ground-based kinetic SHORAD, medium/long range air defense, or BMD projects/studies/hopes & dreams?
The Canadian Army has had a GBAD project on the books since 2017. That has now since evolved into what is essentially a 'UOR' as of last year. Not to be confused with the OTHER air defence UOR that ended up procuring the RBS 70 NG. That was a separate procurement.
That OG GBAD itself was always a bit of a contentious project. The project itself was a holdover from the GWOT era. Its primary focus was on things like C-RAM, while also desiring a capacity for short-range air defence against things like cruise missiles, low-flying aircraft, etc.
Needless to say, there were a few issues. Once the war in Ukraine kicked off, priorities started to shift as we realized that perhaps a C-RAM-focused system was not the most needed. Keep in mind, at this time we were also starting to scale up our presence in Latvia.
So there was a recognition that our lack of any GBAD capabilities was a major hindrance, and a further recognition that we needed a layered approach to our air defence. Keep in mind, GBAD as it existed was always a major piss-off to a lot of companies, who found the requirements convoluted and, depending on who you ask, a bit biased to certain people.
I won't get into it here because I have talked about it a lot, including a whole article! This did make an issue, though... We needed more than what GBAD was asking, but we also couldn't afford to just restart the whole process. That's where Enduring Phase II and III come in. Those are actual GBAD projects, focused on acquiring a SHORAD/VSHORAD system for the wider Army.
Again, the GBAD project was instead moved into focusing on supporting MNB-L as uplift. That is currently out on RFP. The Army is hoping for IOC there in November 2027 at the latest. Enduring would come with Phase II in 2029 and Phase III in 2030, so long as everything went to plan.
Medium, long-range, and land-based GBAD is currently the domain of the RCAF, who has initiated an IAMD study to better conceptualize what a Canadian IAMD network looks like. It is not a project in itself, but an ever-evolving list of capabilities and projects unified under one banner.
That study is ongoing, with no active timelines that I have ever heard. Hopefully, in the coming year, we get a better look at the vision.
Q30. Like others I continue to hear concerns with our Cyclones. I don’t think Navy is part of nTACS? What could we expect as a replacement process before RCD delivery?
The Navy doesn't touch helicopters, which is why they're really pissed, lol. For the RCAF, Cyclone is independent of nTACS. The Cyclones are supposed to remain in service into the early 2040s. That is still the official plan.
What we have now is the Maritime Helicopter Upgrade (MHU) project, which will determine the path forward. Lockheed has presented the option for us to just take Seahawks, like everyone else, and move on. Lockheed has lost several hundred million on the Cyclone program.
There is quite literally no winner on Cyclone. Zero. The Air Force has a draining helicopter, the Navy lacks a critical piece of equipment that forms the backbone of its ASW capabilities, and no one is making any money off it.
But we can't just get rid of them... there is a process, one that needs to move at the cabinet level. It is up to cabinet to make the choice, and then up to folks like the TB to fund such a rapid replacement. The RCAF can't just ditch Cyclone on a whim.
The option is presented. Everyone is down, but it's up to the feds to move on it, and right now they haven't. There is a timeline where we just have to try and make Cyclones work for the foreseeable future.
Q31. Gripen aside, could a mixed Hi/Lo fleet of F-35s and a squadron or two of combat-ready versions of M-346 be a viable way to counter the F-35's operating costs?
I don't care for fighter-trainers. That's Hawk's thing. For the 346 specifically? No. They would be expensive for the benefit they provide. Limited capability with currently no integration of longer-range munitions like the AIM-120, extremely short-range, way too short for NORAD, transonic, and a cool but very limited Grifo-346 radar.
If your goal is to get some AIM-9s in the air, then sure, it could do that. Can it be a viable platform for NORAD? No. It is a limited light fighter that fundamentally isn't built to act as a low-end for Canada. We ain't Austria. It doesn't have the speed, range, or sensors to be remotely useful in the NORAD role.
You are better off looking at CCA by that point if you want a low but don't want a jet like Gripen.
Q32. In the UAV space, we've heard a lot lately from Volatus - has there been any news from further West? Draganfly, North Vector, Canadian UAVs, etc.?
Draganfly is doing cool stuff! They just completed their acquisition of Skip Dynamix, recently secured a new U.S. Air Force contract, and have been looking to expand their product line both with new UAS and optical systems, which I am proud to see because the Draganfly team has always been fantastic to me.
I think there are lots of opportunities out West, especially in Alberta. The provincial government launched their own defence team this year, have provided new support to help revitalize the Foremost Test Range, and are actively helping hunt and support tenants, for any of you interested, lol. The Alberta Defence Team are very talkative folks. Love 'em. Same with Quebec.
UVAD is one you missed, but I would keep an eye out. Paul ain't doing UAS exactly. He's focused on CUAS with North Vector and hypersonics. The guys at ARA Robotics are also cool. I was highly impressed talking with them about the ARA405 and ARA408. The 405 to me just looks super cool, lol.
Landing Zone Canada has their glider concepts, as well as their balloon-tethered drone concepts, though I have yet to hear much from them recently. I will have to follow up with them a bit, because they're also doing cool stuff.
The opportunities are there, and there are lots of really cool companies, but right now we don't really have the framework in place—and MINERVA doesn't count—to really foster a holistic, scalable system of support to our UAS industry at the scales they really need. That's why the likes of Draganfly are mainly doing cool stuff down South.
I hope that changes, but my faith there is limited.
Q33. Are there any plans for unique camo, paint, or livery for the RCAF F-35As like the USMC has on some of their F-35Bs?
I have heard some stuff, but nothing official! So sadly, I can't really talk on this topic. I'm sorry! I know some people have talked about it. I am sadly not privy to details.
You know I would love to hear someone who is or has been a real submariner talk about the two sub choices at least in general terms. Most of this procurement assigns the majority of points in this procurement to ability to maintain & economic benefits to Canada….so here is hoping things work out for the best on this. (Certainly for the men & women who will crew them)
A lot of people are saying Gripens at Hamilton would be a great idea. And just imagine the heritage flight photo-ops with the Lancaster, B-25, and C-47?