Let's Talk with Noah (06/25/26): Debating, Halifax in Hamilton, Cyclone, Polar Helicopter, What Is The Role Of The CDC, What Replaces The Kingston, Munitions
Q&A
Happy Thursday!
This Week was fun. You guys are making me think lol. Another record breaker in word count, but not a whole lot. Sorry for Thursday, but I had a Kindergarten graduation to attend for my middle. Down to one in Kindergarten now. Soon none.
This week has been hell, but it's all good knowing that we got to see that. Next week is looking busy, so likely a split in Q&A if the Feds decide to be silly. I managed to get through the questions this week though! Yay! Only took me four hours lol. I need a rest day soon though. Maybe a spa day.
Anywho, we have great questions this week. Lots of unusual ones, which I always love.
Q1. Are there any rumors or concepts of a plan to turn a Halifax-class into a museum ship once enough River-class are ready for operational use?
If there are, I have not heard it. Certainly, I would love to see it happen. I believe at least one of a family of vessels should be preserved for future generations to get a chance to see them, but if there are such plans discussed, I have never heard of them.
We have a history of struggling to maintain and properly support museum ships; it's why we don't really see it anymore. That is a shame. I hope we can find a path to change that, but right now it doesn't seem to be in the cards.
That can change, mind you. Lots of time, lol, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Q2. If the Navy is unhappy about not controlling helicopters, could it create a naval air corps to take over this responsibility from the RCAF?
Highly unlikely. The issue isn't really the RCAF. It ain't on them. It ain't on the guys maintaining them who have performed some miracles to keep things like the Cyclone going. They can be mad at the situation. They can be upset that part is out of their control and still not demand control over something.
As always, setting something like that up means needing to have the comparable organization, personnel, infrastructure, etc., available to replace the RCAF in that capacity. If your plan is to utilize mostly RCAF infrastructure, then there is little point to such a switch besides adding another checkpoint and roadblock to the system.
People hate consolidation, but for certain capabilities, it just isn't worth the time and effort to set up an alternative organization with an overlapping mandate, especially for a singular platform. That is a lot of time, money, and effort to put into having a second rotary organization at this point. Yes, many allies maintain that, but most also have naval air arms that are more extensive than a single helicopter.
Unless you plan for the RCAF to run several aircraft to themselves, there is little reason to even think about it.
Q3. How does the A400M potentially correlate with Canadian requirements? It's in production and seems like a next-best option to C-17 once that line went cold.
I actually talked about this a little while ago. I like the A400. On paper, and as always there are gonna be discrepancies, compared to the C-130J it offers superior payload capacity (about 17 extra tons), range (2100nm vs. 3,400nm with a 20t payload), amazing short/unpaved runway performance despite its size, a modern glass cockpit, a fully digital Fly-By-Wire (FBW) system, and in my opinion, a better electronic suite.
The A400 is massive. It's not a C-17, but compared to others like the 130 and C-390? She's hulking. The A400 is designed as a mini-strategic aircraft, designed to carry significant cargo over long distances. Even then, it isn't perfect. There are some lackings that need to be discussed. That single-track pallet system is a common one you will hear.
There exists overlap, yes; however, they are fundamentally designed for different purposes. You also can't discount the proven, rugged capabilities that the C-130J provides. It's a tough, reliable little bastard that we know works when we need it, even if the design is outdated. I will also say that the Block 8.1 upgrade being done on the C-130J fleet is nice as well.
We've built around the C-130J, and giving that up will never be easy. Maybe there is room to fit the A400 as a middle option, but I don't feel we would do that. I think there is a lot of potential the A400M offers. I think the C-130J is just getting a bit too small for keeping up with the size of modern platforms, many of which are getting ridiculously big in size compared to the C-130J.
It is a nearly 100-year-old design. It is a byproduct of an era, and that alone gives it a shelf life. You can't beat design, and you can't beat the world changing around you. I think there is significant, and I mean very good, opportunity for the C-390 to step in here as a more direct replacement if that's what we want.
But we also gotta think of what we're using them for. A wider and more expansive internal cargo hold in a similar package could be the answer, if only just to get around the rampant size increases in vehicles over the last 20 years. If we plan to do more of the same, I think that could be more valuable.
I think the C-130 as a family is on borrowed time for us, for many just based off those outside factors. Vehicles are getting bigger, and the C-130 was just not conceptualized with that in mind. On the other hand, you can land those fuckers almost anywhere, we have an extensive, decades-long supply and support chain built for them, and we know they'll do what we want.
That makes it very hard to give up. Extremely hard for some. I would love to see something like the A400M. I think a lot of that, though, depends on the Army and what they need to be successful. If they want a credible airlift capability to bridge to Europe in a conflict, then something like the A400M is immensely valuable as a country with limited sealift.
I think we fall into that. I think it's something we need to discuss, and luckily the RCAF is.
Q4. With attack helicopters being mentioned for nTACS, do you know what the leading candidate is or is it too early? I'm assuming it is the Apache.
They want a dedicated attack helicopter. That is what the plans are saying right now. As of right now, Apache and Fenice are the two options on the market being considered. Viper is there but not seriously considered by anyone I have talked with. It is considered a bit of a dead-end.
Tiger has a bad reputation around and isn't available anymore, so it is out. There are a few left-field options. The LAH-1 Miron is talked about some, especially if KAI and Airbus are willing to work together. Apache suffers a bit because we would prefer a single supplier for Phase II and III, but we also want a partner willing to support domestic production.
Will Boeing do that? Highly unlikely. Airbus has Fort Erie and is open to expanding with new facilities. Leonardo has also expressed willingness to expand their domestic footprint. AW249 is also a really cool, advanced platform. It is digital-first, AI-integrated, and a modern, clean design backed by a world-class sensor suite.
Apache isn't outdated as a platform, but it is a Cold War design, and that instills certain limits and philosophies. It definitely is an option. I think it is very early to say either it or Fenice has a lead. However, Fenice does have a few advantages that people like, and that will help them immensely.
Q5. With CDC originally being a MCDV replacement but turning into a pocket frigate, what does the RCN envision for its role in the future fleet mix?
The primary role of CDC is continental defence. In that capacity, the CDC acts as a lower-end complement to the River-class, serving tasks like coastal patrol, convoy escorting, supporting tasks like MCM, sovereignty enforcement, and limited northern patrol.
The River-class will be freed up for things like sea lane control, anti-submarine operations in the Atlantic and Pacific outside our continental territory, supporting ballistic missile defence, and other high-end tasks outside Canada. Without the CDC, the River-class has to take over those local roles. They would need to be patrolling the coasts, escorting vessels in conflict, and enforcing sovereignty domestically. That isn't to say a CDC will never leave Canada just as a River will never be only an expeditionary platform, but the main idea is to have CDC around to do a lot of those secondary tasks.
That includes some Kingston roles like MCM, where CDC would still act as mothership platforms to autonomous systems. We talked a lot about that here. They'll have the capability to contribute to undersea domain awareness and support ASW operations to a limited capability with the inclusion of a hull-mounted sonar and the ability to carry containerized capabilities like the future COBRA towed array.
They'll be able to operate in internal waters like the St. Lawrence. An area that we have a whole World War to prove ain't safe from adversaries, especially in the era of grey zone tactics and the proliferation of cheaper munitions and autonomous systems.
Most of all, fifteen Rivers can't cover it all. We need more combatants. We know this. That is a mix of surface vessels and submarines, but there are things that one can do and the other can't. It isn't 1:1. Fifteen Rivers doesn't provide the depth we need to both secure Canada’s vast coasts and internal waters while also supporting international operations and potential conflict environments.
CDC fills that gap below the Arctic, while platforms like the AOPS fulfill that up north. It complements. Both of which free up the River to go out there and project force outside Canadian waters, because just securing your waters doesn't mean you're safe. Adversaries can still cut us off from the sea lines of communication. Adversaries can still target us on an economic and human level, and national security isn't just defence. It is infrastructure, it is the economy, it is people.
Keeping those secure means having the platforms available, and capable, of securing those global networks. CDC helps us do that immensely by freeing up the platforms that do that from doing secondary and smaller tasks at home, where their potential is quite frankly wasted.
Q6. Have you considered “triaging” weekly questions into categories (top/med/low) and then allocating your time accordingly to answering them (all/most/some)?
I have. You guys have had some great suggestions! I'm not fully set on what to do yet; I still need some time to think, you know? I don't wanna do something then decide to switch up two weeks later. I want something solid I'll commit to doing. So I'm still taking ideas!
Q7. Are there any updates on the night vision debacle?
Unfortunately not since our last update, which you can find here. I'm sorry.
Q8. Is the plan for the AOPS to fill the to-be-retired MCDV's role, while the AOPS are already doing their own job, and some of the lower end of the Halifax's?
In the long-term, the role of the Kingston will be distributed across the fleet from FASST-V to the Continental Defence Corvette. Tasks like MCM and such are rapidly becoming platform-agnostic instead of platform-specific. A lot of that comes from the shift of mentality from dedicated MCM vessels to vessels carrying autonomous MCM platforms.
We have that already in stuff like the new Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems. A containerized system provided by Kraken Robotics, RMDS consists of a 20ft TEU equipped with the REMUS AUV and SEAFOX mine disposal vehicle. SH Defence is providing its CUBE modular container system for the project, while Kraken will be equipping it with their AquaPix synthetic aperture sonar.
That can go on any vessel that can fit it and support the SWaP-C requirements. Above that, the RCN is also exploring the acquisition of an MCM Uncrewed Surface Vehicle System similar in concept to RNMB Hazard. Autonomous, around 10-12m in length, able to be fitted with various MCM modules and systems like SeaFox and the SeaCat UUV, and deployed from platforms like the AOPS. Something like ARCIMS or Pathmaster.
That is actually expecting an RFI soon, lol. To answer the other half? Basically. The AOPS are what is available, and so they become the solution to every situation that doesn't need the Halifax. The Halifax are tight run. They have places to be and little wiggle room. So the AOPS fills that role.
That's why there is such a concern about getting hulls in the water, especially with the concept of getting the CDC within the next decades. It is driven by the need to have more hulls available, because right now? The only other option we have is running the AOPS to death.
Q9. How is the development of air-to-air refueling on Global 6500 progressing?
Good to remember that the only source we have on that is MGen Jeff Smyth talking to Skies. There is no official word on it, no timeline, and as of now it is in the conceptual stage. Bombardier, and I can say this, has done work on the idea for years. They've studied it; so have others who have looked at the idea. It isn't a new thing.
That doesn't mean it's at any stage or the other. I cannot speak to Bombardier internal engineering. They are the only people who know the timelines for such a thing. There are some that hope it can be done quicker. Either way, even if it takes a few years to develop on our GlobalEye or something, it would still be in service quicker than the original plan, and for a lot on the federal side, that is good enough.
We're aiming to have these ASAP, but we have wiggle room. Sadly, that is in Bombardier's hands. They're the ones who have to figure it out and get it done. Sadly, I don't know their timeframes. I did ask; it was a work in progress.
Q10. Are there any discussions/rumblings in the government/RCAF regarding the F-35's low availability rates in the US?
RCAF, not really that I have heard; Federal, most definitely a discussion. A very common one of concern, and one that is directly affecting their perception of the value of the F-35. There is a lot of concern on not just if F-35s will be available if we need them, but the optimal F-35s needed. Both on the federal side, the recent discussions are making people ask about it. That's all I can say at this time.
Q11. What are some lesser-known projects that you are excited for or are interested to see what comes from it?
Oh gosh, all of them, lol? I love every project. Each one is special to me in its own unique way. I wish I could think about all of them, all the time. I would love to see what the MILCOTS replacement asks for. I would love to see if my bridging predictions come true. God, I am really excited to see what comes out of the UGV stuff. I would really love to see what comes of it, because that won't be a single supplier.
LAND ISR and the sensors that come out of it are another really cool one. That includes Counter-UAS and Counter-Battery Radars. I find sensors are something that pokes my brain a bit. I love them. I love to read about them, talk about them, and I love to see projects with them involved.
The RCAF Air-Launched Effects Project is another one going to RFI this year if all goes to plan, and that one I feel has a lot of potential to be really cool, depending on the requirements. I don't fully know what they're planning, so it's hard for me to say.
But I love every project. I can always find something to love. I don't think I could do this if I wasn't unhealthily obsessive.
Q12. How is munitions production coming along and are there places or some munitions you think we should start ramping up or start trying to produce?
Well, I'll tell you what, if you want nitrocellulose, we got you fucking covered. Even without the government throwing money to General Dynamics, there are still multiple nitrocellulose and 155mm munition projects running through the private sector. CellCore, Iron Willow, Militus, Nalaqx just to name a few. If I missed you, then you can yell at me.
How many of these are successful has yet to be seen. All are promising they have partners and contracts lined up. I have yet to directly talk to any of them, but I wanna change that. For now, though, when it comes to those two critical avenues, there is no lack of proposals out there.
My focus, at least initially, has been securing what we have. That includes small-calibre ammunition, modern 120mm munitions, 57mm munitions, 155mm, etc. My core, for me personally, has been focused on the basics; get that secure. I still don't think we are there yet, not until we have lines running and munitions coming off the line, but we are taking good steps to be there.
I think we need to be realistic about what we can and likely would produce here. We won't be making PAC, or AIM-120, or Meteor. Not anytime soon. We have lost out in places like HIMARS by being too late to the game to justify. In my opinion, we shouldn't waste time on lost causes.
If it were me? I would aim to get stuff like our future ATGM domestically produced, at least the missiles themselves, same with any VSHORAD option we might choose through Enduring Phase III. I think those are both aspirational but obtainable goals.
We have torpedoes secure. That is an absolutely major industrial capability to have, one I think is being a bit undersold, truth be told. Torpedoes, especially modern ones, are highly digital, complex systems in themselves. Modern torpedoes are no easier to construct in terms of technology and infrastructure as, say, a modern cruise missile. Both require significant investment and a level of industrial technology to produce domestically.
Producing something like torpedoes domestically is a major boost to the defence industrial base. It alone is a game-changer for Canada's domestic munition capabilities.
Drones are another one. Loitering munitions, one-way effectors, CUAS missiles. I think we could do that if we wanted. I see no reason why we couldn't. That is another area I would love to see some domestic work be done.
I think if you get all those, you will have a fantastic base. Rockets are another, and Hanwha is promising to work on that if they win CPSP, but it is also a very contested market, I won't lie. Good to have, but its potential is very dependent.
If I could have a dream? NSM/JSM. 1000%. That has been rumored before with Kongsberg and CPSP; I haven't seen it confirmed yet. I think the potential is there. I think we could get it in a 1/10 scenario. I think that would be like my dream, lol.
Q13. Did I miss some new issue with the Cyclone fleet? There seems to be quite a few less flying around lately.
Oh boy buddy, I hate to be the one to tell you, but it's been rough. Ongoing supply problems and lack of spare parts forced a grounding last year for a lot of the fleet. Cyclones lost Link 11 last year, and Lockheed wants a significant chunk of change now to integrate Link 16. That's on top of several other expensive upgrades on the table that are needed. Block 2.1 was delayed again and might be for the millionth time, FOC was pushed back to 2029, Vice-Admiral Topshee tore into them so hard that their machine spirit was likely left in tears, and Lockheed has lost over half a billion on the Cyclone program.
No one is happy. Everyone is crying and screaming; the RCN has no reliable helicopter and so is resorting to sonobuoys on Hammerheads, which might actually be a good thing, but I digress. The RCAF doesn't seem to know what to do, we have a Maritime Helicopter Upgrade project on the books, Lockheed really wants to just get us on Seahawks like everyone else, and I think someone is likely using ancient druidic magic to try and keep the fleet flying.
That sums it up nicely?
Q14. Why hasn't the RCAF followed up on the 2023 approaches/test landing at CFB Edmonton? Did they find it's not worth paying to repair/reactivate the runway?
That I can't fully say in detail. I asked a while back for more info but never got an answer because someone else had asked me about that stuff. Let me ask the DND folks and see if I can get anything more detailed! Let me see around. I doubt there is much, but I know you guys like big details.
Keep in mind those tests and trials weren't meant to really evaluate the long-term reactivation of the runway. It was always meant to see if it could be used in an emergency scenario or for local support. Fully reactivating the runway would be both expensive and extremely difficult in its current state.
The partnership with YEG on Husky for the Western Main Operating Base has also been looked at by quite a few as a door opening to expanded cooperation and potential development at what is considered a far better location. So there is that as well.
Q15. Instead of a dedicated attack helicopter for nTACs, could we see an armed transport similar to a DAP or the different armed concepts for the MV-75?
The intent right now is for a dedicated attack helicopter. That is how I have been told. As always, that can change, but that is the intent. Armed variants of utility helicopters have been discussed, and there is a lot of love for how systems like HForce can support things like scalable rotary CUAS and such. So maybe the future has both?
Q16. A Halifax should join HMCS Haida at HMCS Star. Lots of room along the renovated Pier 8 and the former Great Lakes Discovery Centre museum is there and vacant.
As a kid whose first military experience was as a kid in Hamilton? Absolutely. 1000%.
Q17. In your last news update you referenced the polar helicopter project RFP. What type of frosty whirly bird is the CCG considering? What’s the scoop?
The Canadian Coast Guard is looking for 4-6 new medium-lift helicopters to support year-round Arctic deployment from the upcoming polar icebreakers.
As a quick rundown on requirements: The polar helicopter needs to accommodate at least 12 passengers alongside two pilots, and achieve a minimum cruise speed of 140 knots. It needs to be certified for extreme temperatures down to -40°C, operate in known icing conditions, and feature a dual four-axis Automatic Flight Control System with auto-hover and SAR modes.
It must also possess a main rotor blade folding capability, allowing up to two of these helicopters to fit simultaneously inside the polar icebreaker's hangar. Dimensions listed are L: 21,000mm, W: 5,300mm, H: 5,545mm.
The RFI was reposted after sitting and collecting dust for the last year. There is a bit of a rush here to get them delivered before Arpatuuq hits the CCG in 2030.
Q18. If the government does go with a mixed fighter fleet, is joining the Saab 6th Gen fighter/CCA program a logical next step? Feels like a natural partnership.
Any partnership on Gripen would be part of a broader strategic partnership. Naturally, that should include future developments like sixth-gen fighters. You don't build true partnerships off solely existing platforms. How that relates to GCAP talks? I don't know. That's for the Feds to decide, but yeah, it is the logical next step.
Q19. I saw Airbus' H145M at CANSEC had the HForce package. Could CAF choose it for both utility and attack (and to simplify logistics) and use CCAs for assault ops?
When I saw it, I nearly fell to my knees. HForce is such a benefit to Airbus in a lot of things. A versatile, open-architecture system that is both extremely modular and already set for autonomous integration? Set me up!
Now, funny enough, the H145M was for a long time a popular option among many, small but with great margins, versatile in a number of roles like CASEVAC, CUAS, as an anti-armour platform, room for a lot of sensors, built-in for M-UMT.
Cheap, highly scalable and replaceable, has an excellent maritime variant, has an autonomous variant for those really into that stuff. The H145M is the primary reason why some considered ditching a medium-lift helicopter entirely in favour of a bunch of H145Ms and more Chinooks.
Sadly, that didn't work out, and nTACS is looking for more. That doesn't shut the door entirely, but it won't be from the nTACS side of things it seems. They're looking at a full medium-lift.
Q20. Is there any development on expanding the support fleet for the navy? More Protecteurs or something else?
Basic ideas, but limited in nature. We have Arctic Mobile Base, which you can read about here. We all know, everyone knows, that two JSS ain't enough. Never was. Three is the absolute minimum, four to ensure we have some availability on both coasts. Some have argued for six? I don't think we ever see that.
There are ideas for a JSS Batch II, but as of now, they are only talks. It is not a project. It isn't in the plans officially. It isn't funded. It hasn't been fully discussed with Seaspan. Funny enough, the Americans were also poking around Seaspan too last year about it. That's a fun fact for the day.
Two Arctic Mobile Bases and four JSS is certainly a plan to some. It would put us in a fantastic spot among our allies to have that capacity. The new fleet mix will likely dive into this further. Two JSS comes from a different time, a time of a much smaller fleet mix and little desire to invest beyond the bare minimum.
Q21. Will the AOPSCCGV (thank you Lockheed for the acronym) be getting murals like the other AOPS?
I hate that acronym. Lockheed folks who follow me, please tell your media folks to never use it again. It does not roll off the tongue. It sounds nice to no one. Anywho, that's up to the CCG. I don't know if that's their plan.
The murals on the RCN AOPS are actually really cool, because it comes from a spirit of kinship, where many of the AOPS and their crews who have interacted with Indigenous communities up north have formed a bond through their yearly interactions with each other.
That's missed in AOPS discourse, how these platforms give the navy something that they can go and visit communities with, can go and support them, engage with them, to say that we are here.
All those murals were drawn and designed by Indigenous artists in these communities. They carry symbolism and meaning to them. They are the communities' mark of friendship and connection with these vessels.
There is something inherently spiritual and deep in my mind when it comes to stuff like that. They ain't just cool artwork; they're a link, no matter how far away, to the individual communities that many of the AOPS have now formed a bond with.
That makes them extra cool in my mind.
Q22. Last week you invited a debate. How do we debate the superior hunter/killer for CPSP when I only get 160 characters? Lol.
Y'all only get 160 characters? I thought it was a lot more. Hold up. I swore you guys got more with Slido. 😭
Q23. TKMS the superior hunter. Superior economies of scale with 24 units Germany/Norway. Legacy tech, acoustic stealth hull. Future IDAS, SeaSpider, JSM-SL, SLCM.
The economies of scale are one of TKMS's biggest advantages. Same with being able to leverage the Kongsberg and Atlas ecosystems. You should also mention ORCCA as well, because that's a great CMS from the demo I played with.
However, I will argue sensors-wise, in most ways, there isn't much between the two platforms. Safran versus Hensoldt masts? Both are world-class and comparable. Give credit also to LIG. Their systems might be new, but they have a good history of producing top-notch systems, and benefited from having a connection and being able to work with folks like Thales. For stuff like the sonar, it was backed by a massive state initiative. That can carry some risk, but LIG also did the sonar for Batch I, and by all accounts, it turned out excellent, great capabilities, minimum issues on the first batch.
I don't think, talking to both and hearing about both systems, that there is a sensor advantage that leans one way. There is always a benefit to legacy providers who have history, but fundamentally, I don't think the systems on there are much different.
In some cases, I think it depends. Germans are masters of AIP systems, and their new fourth-gen fuel cell system is really freaking awesome, but Hanwha is not only a world leader in battery systems, but also has the backing of the Samsung lithium-ion ecosystem here for fuel cells. That is one system I think the KSS-III likely does better in, if we want an example.
For systems, I don't think it's black and white. A lot of them, masts, sonars, CMS, I think are very comparable on both platforms, with a few distinctions between them where one side likely maintains an advantage.
Munitions... that one's harder. JSM-SL doesn't fully exist and isn't necessarily a TKMS exclusive here. If we wanted it on the KSS-III, it would very likely be possible, especially with Spain leading hard on development and both the S-80 and KSS-III utilizing Babcock WHS. Integration is a step no matter what platform.
SeaSpider is cool, and partially Canadian! However, it is also still developmental, and while it is set to start being deployed next year, there is still gonna be that initial hurdle of first coming into service. That shouldn't be a huge problem for us when it comes to our timelines, but anything still seen as developmental carries an inherent risk involved.
IDAS and any other sub-launched air defence I am highly skeptical of. Skeptical with the Germans, French, Koreans. I don't trust the concept at all. IDAS has been in the works since I was a baby. It is still not deployed. It is still in development, and I am highly skeptical of both the value and effectiveness of such munitions.
Munitions are one area the 212CD is still working heavy on. Certainly, by the time we get them, this might not be an issue. They might be available, but that isn't a guarantee, and most of them are still several years off of certification and being in a state of being deployable, usable munitions.
Compared to the KSS-III, where we know stuff like the Haeseong-III and V are deployed? It's two different conversations. One capability exists, one hopes to exist. Munitions is one area I would not try to argue right now for the 212CD, and why I don't when talking about the benefits of both platforms.
Stealth? That's a good argument, but focusing on the diamond-shaped hull misses a lot. The diamond-shaped hull is only one aspect. There is also the non-magnetic steel; the X-form rudder helps with acoustic management. There are the active measures, such as the degaussing system that the 212CD is still likely to have because not everything inside is non-magnetic, something often missed.
The diamond-shaped hull was always skeptical to me. There is a lot there that is hopeful. There are use cases, such as littoral areas and shallow seas like the Baltic where that diamond-shaped hull could help, less so in open ocean environments.
Sharp angles and flat surfaces are not hydrodynamically efficient. That drag coefficient eats into the AIP system and battery life; it has to work harder than the traditional teardrop. For a littoral-focused submarine, or one that plans to primarily lurk at low speed, that isn't fully an issue, but the Navy also wants a submarine that can operate in an expeditionary role, in the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific.
While there is a large domestic focus, the Navy does have outside ambitions, and that is one area where the 212CD isn't as efficient, by design mind you. It's a sacrifice. That same hull, while it does work to reduce active methods of detection, which is a concern for Germany and Norway, that same design also introduces noise.
It creates significant turbulence and swirling vortices off the hull that low-frequency passive sensors are gonna pick up on, made worse the faster you go. That is just an inherent tradeoff of not using an efficient design, but it is a choice. Now, TKMS ain't stupid. They're gonna do their damnedest to optimize this hull down to the inch to make sure they can reduce that effect, but they can't make it disappear fully. It's a built-in effect.
The X-rudder helps that, but not fully. Optimization can do miracles, but it isn't magic. When you talk about the stealth on the 212CD, you really need, in my opinion, to mention everything, because focusing on the hull is only one section, and it's only really meant to go after one half of the equation.
The 212CD focuses on active stealth. That is the concern that the Germans and Norwegians have with the Russians, but to do that you sacrifice on the passive end. Same with steel. There are stealth benefits to a deeper-diving submarine. There are survivability benefits.
Two different submarines. Both are inherently designed for different environments. 212CD is oceangoing, make no mistake, but that isn't its primary playing field. As to which is the better hunter-killer? That will likely heavily depend, in my expert opinion, on the environment really, what assets our adversaries are utilizing. Neither wants to meet a nuke boat in the open ocean. That is their domain, but in my opinion, in that environment, the KSS-III would fare better against another submarine.
Again, I don't think it's black and white. I think overall, 212CD is the inherently stealthier platform overall. It is built to be quiet and lurk. It is the Lynx after all, as I call it! But that alone doesn't make it the best hunter-killer in every place.
Q24. Does the RCN have a working list of locations where they want to operate FASTT-V or is it still just generalized around RCN Reserve locations?
I have not seen it. I'm sure it exists, but I don't know it. The general idea is around naval reserves with a big focus on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence area. That is both obviously where a large part of the population is located and one of the critical gaps in the navy's current coverage.
FASST-V gives the navy a presence in these areas that they haven't had in decades. That is the primary area where you will see a lot of them, even up in potentially new places like Sault Ste. Marie. Generally, I would look around that area.
Q25. With CDC becoming a “pocket frigate”, will that affect its role to replace the Kingston class, its focus on mine countermeasure capability vs. more firepower?
I kinda answered most of this above? CDC isn't really a Kingston replacement. The roles of the Kingston are being replaced by a dispersed outlook to things like MCM, as we said above. There is no true Kingston replacement anymore.
Q26. Any insights into the RCAF 'RAGNAR' project to transform the air weapons range in AB and the military flying area in QC?
Next week you'll be happy. That's all I'll say~ 😉
Q27. Are there any thoughts on longer-range ground-based air defence for Canada?
That falls under the current Integrated Air and Missile Defence Strategy. That falls to the RCAF. For the Army, the focus remains on a SHORAD system as the high-level to air defence, something like NASAMS, IRIS-T, etc., is kinda what they're after.
Beyond that? That's IAMD territory, and right now they're exploring options, but nothing is set. We know we need it. We know we need something, what that is? What it looks like? We don't know. That's part of what is being studied now.
Q28. Will CDC have ASW capabilities and if so, what types of weapons are plausible?
Right now, the only thing the navy is explicitly talking about is a hull-mounted sonar. There have been no talks of a towed array nor integrating torpedoes. Now, because CDC is planned to be a modular vessel, likely integrating space for at least several TEUs, there is likely a case where stuff like torpedoes or towed arrays are relegated to potential containerized systems.
We already have plans with COBRA for a containerized towed array system. Torpedoes are unlikely on CDC. If anything, you're more likely to see them on something like a USV or UAS over CDC itself. CDC also has a large mandate for the use of autonomous systems, and it is an area the navy is interested in.
Likely we cap off at a hull-mounted sonar and potentially a containerized towed array in situations where it's deemed needed. Never say never though. We'll see.
Q29. Even though Saab is the preferential bidder, does L3 still have a chance to win the AEW&C contract? Does the way the fighter review swings have any sway?
This is separate from the Fighter Review for now. It has influence, obviously, but it's being treated separate from Gripen until it isn't, if you feel me. On the second question? Of course they could. If negotiations break down, which they do happen sometimes, then L3 could jump in. It isn't over until the contract is signed.
Q30. Any knowledge of the numbers for the M4 and M72s, also any word on the LAV procurement?
I can't speak on exact numbers there. As for LAV? It's there, lol. The plans are the same as we last talked about. Nothing changed the last few weeks.
190 new ACSV were brought up to Cabinet at the end of last June. The Army is also requesting an initial batch of 140 ACV-W; 1,100 ACV-W are reportedly hoped for delivery by 2035ish. The Army is still trying to figure out that final number they need, with the hope we can get the LAV on a long-term, continuous production cycle.
Q31. Any info on AUV fuel cell refuelling plans? Shared with CPSP, or AUV specific? Autonomous? Motherships vs. fixed sites? PV onsite reactant generation vs. central?
I can't talk to official plans for that, lol. There are a few concepts out there. Autonomous cell swapping is something Cellula is working on. GeoSpectrum has a concept for moored refueling stations that act as docking stations for UUVs to allow them a fixed site to operate off of for long-term persistence. They also act as VLF transmitters.
I don't think the navy is fully there with a plan for that stuff, and is likely to let industry kinda take a lead here. Motherships are the focus over fixed infrastructure, primarily focused initially on platforms like the AOPS. UUVs in many cases are viewed as a complementary asset over an independent one; though they will operate autonomously, they are going to be tied in to home vessels like CPSP, CDC, and AOPS, at least to my understanding.
That is also only the initial. I imagine as we go beyond 2035 we see a lot more into fixed sites, long-term persistent deployments, and things like moored stations.
The Advanced Naval Capabilities Unit is looking at UUVs a lot, and they're looking at this kind of stuff in more depth right now. We're in the experimental phase though, with a lot of faith and concepts being left to industry to help kinda codevelop the capabilities and concepts!
Q32. Has there been any desire from the RCA to procure a SPAAG system? Missiles are great, but when you've got a 100 small/med drones to deal with, SPAAG is king.
That falls under Enduring Phase III for VSHORAD! There is a desire to have a mixed system that utilizes both gun and missile-based capabilities to fulfill our VSHORAD requirements. Something like Sgt. Stout is a good example! There is also interest with MCAV now what options might be around, same with the Reserves and their own concepts.
So there is 100% a lot of interest in a multi-layered approach to this stuff!
That was a great answer for Q23. Especially the part about the German/Norwegian emphasis on active stealth as opposed to passive stealth. It seems to me that passive stealth would be more critical in the open ocean. Also had no idea about the diamond shape of the 212CD causing more turbulence. I'm still sold on the KSS-III. I think it's a more balanced flexible option.
I'm really hoping for the JSM/NSM as well for munitions production - stretch goal for the 3SM Tyrfing :)