Let's Talk with Noah (07/02/26): Shapes and Colours, IAMD Framework, LVM Followup, Griffon, 2 Yards For CDC/FASST-V?, Land ISR Sensors, MPI
Q&A
Happy Thursday!
It's another Let's Talk! Today and Yesterday dropped a lot of news, so this one was a bit of a struggle. Next week is shaping up to be major, so forgive me if next weeks Q&A includes a lot of crying and talks about pain in my hands. NATO Summit is always a hoot.
This week we will be trying to exexute our first split! 31 questions today, and the other like 20-25 like Sunday or Monday. Lets see if this works lol. You guys overwhelmingly wanted me to try the Split, so we'll go at it. I'm also trying Colours, perhaps to be closely followed by shaped. Only one with colouring, but let me know if you guys like it.
Q1. Since you mentioned that you know announcements before the public, I'm curious how far out on average do you find out the winner for projects like the CPSP?
Entirely dependent. Sometimes a few days, sometimes a few weeks. If I had it my way, I wouldn't know any, but they have a way of coming to me whether I want them or not. With the CPSP, I have been very harsh and constant in reminding everyone I don't want to hear it.
I can't be bothered to do that all the time, though. So sadly, I don't get to feel that surprise, but such is the mandate you take when you do this. It is a small ask on my end to ensure I can provide better info to all of you.
I can take joy in how happy and excited all of you get, and I wait for all of you to hear too so I can talk about things. You find happiness in whatever way you can, and I am not really sad about it anymore. I miss the surprises and not knowing what the announcements could be, but it's alright. You guys just have to be a bit more excited to make up for it!
Q2. Has there been any rumours about what the ARes might actually be equipped for? Any real new capabilities or status quo barebones for the foreseeable future?
Right now, things are up in the air. The truth is that the Reserves (and the 2nd Div as a whole) were kinda left outside the scope of Inflection Point and CAMO. It isn't that the Army did not care, just that things are being done sort of independently of each other. Same goes for stuff like the Warfighting Concept coming in the fall.
Right now, the question is: what does the Defence of Canada actually look like? What does Mobilization look like? What capabilities are needed, and what skills need to be integrated into the Reserves to answer those? There are ideas out there. There is talk of what types of platforms the Reserves need.
At this time, things are open. It is very open... we're still at the stage of formulating what exactly the Defence of Canada looks like, and until we have that concept, we can't really start talking platforms and capabilities. Things like CUAS will obviously be there, and so is some form of APC, be that a LUV-like vehicle or something else.
But right now, it is a big, open question.
Q3. What are we going to call this era? We have surely exited the Post-Cold War Era and are in something new. *Someone* is going to come up with a name that sticks.
All my names are cringe, so it won't be this boy. I am too silly, but I am open to people trying to give their own names to things! Someone should give it some badass name, though, not something academic or professional.
Q4. If we are tracking that 15 Rivers aren’t enough, is there any thought into ordering more for an expanded fleet?
That's what the CPSP and CDC are for! We went into it a bit last week on the CDC, which you can read here.
Vice-Admiral Topshee himself has stood firm that 35 combatants of some form are needed to provide the necessary depth, availability, and coverage to both protect Canada’s sovereign waters and support our commitments abroad.
I have no idea what CRCN Charlebois thinks at this point in time. Maybe I need to sit with him too? However, the solution isn't more Rivers; it is a cheaper, more scalable combatant that can quickly and affordably add depth while also being capable enough to free the River-class for more important taskings.
That is why the CDC is so important. It is what will get us to those numbers quicker, at a more affordable price point, and in greater numbers than a few extra Rivers could. At least, in theory.
Q5. How do you keep up with posting, answering questions and connecting with others in defence? Do you have a team? And is this your full time job?
This is transitioning to my full-time job. It was officially like three or four weeks ago, but I am still in the adjustment period. I am a one-man team. My My wife does some of the business stuff, keeps track of sponsors, books meetings, and keeps my calendar.
When it comes to writing, social media, this, and talking to everyone, that's all me, and only me. I work at least one or two twelve-hour days a week. Such is what this job demands! There is a lot going on—so much to know and so many people to meet and talk with.
It is tiring, I will admit, but I love it. I love talking to people. I get to live my hobby as a job and get to enjoy this wonderful space for all it's worth in a way almost no one else is blessed with. I love all of you, talking to all of you, seeing people eager to know, and having people to be happy and excited about these things with. I wouldn't trade this for anything.
Best of all, I get to work from home, which is absolutely baller as far as I'm concerned. I make my schedule. I do what I want and write what I feel. I get more time with my family. There is no better life than this one, no matter how stressful or how long the days may be.
Q6. Most kissable military vehicle?
The B-52. You always make sure to give Grandma a kiss.
Q7. Are there any options to expand the LVM fleet? When are the first deliveries?
So, Zetros deliveries are still set as of now for the fall of next year. Everyone is very confident we will hit that. There have been a few minor issues and some concerns, but they are not expected to push off the delivery timeline at this time, based on what I last heard.
We do have an Additional Logistics Vehicles (ALV) project on the books. We also have an MSVS MilCOTS Recapitalization (MSVS R1) and a further-out Logistics Vehicle Recapitalization (LVR) after these two. As of right now, all of these are in the ID stage.
They are still in the early stages of development, so we don't have too much info on them. MSVS R1 has a very vague 2035 timeline, but I am more of the belief that it is a placeholder and is unlikely to be a serious date at this stage.
We know the 1,500 Zetros aren't enough. The MSVS are past their end-of-life, and the SMP will hit their end-of-life in 2028. That doesn't mean they can't keep going; it's almost always the case with us that things keep chugging along despite any notion of an end-of-life date.
However, I do note that the need is there no matter what on the MSVS. In an ideal world? We would commit to more Zetros and try to shrink our ungodly number of truck chassis running around.
On that note, I would love to see the Zetros at least assembled here. Maybe Roshel and Daimler will open that up, I don't know. I would like future trucks to come from a domestic source, but we also have no concept of what is wanted as a replacement. The MSVS replacement could look smaller than a Class 8. That is certainly rumored a bit around Industry.
Basically, there are both additions and replacements on the table, but they are all in the early stages, and we have no idea what exactly is desired at this time.
Q8. What does the recent news on the griffon mean for the fleet?
It means they'll get whatever minimum capabilities are needed to keep them going until nTACS starts delivering. Simple as that. They're gonna keep chugging along as much as they can.
CANSOFCOM could get a new helicopter starting in 2028 if they move as they want, and nTACS Phase III for a new medium helicopter wants deliveries by 2032. We'll also have, hopefully, more Chinooks coming in around the same time. There are always rumors of additional Cormorants.
nTACS is getting expedited from its original timeline. We want to deliver on nTACS years ahead of the original plan. There is value in nTACS for the feds as an economic driver in a key aerospace sector that Canada has industrial capacity in. nTACS is a newly minted $20-billion-dollar project over twenty years.
That is a serious investment that the feds expect to drive equal investment and economic activity over that timeframe. It is one of the largest projects on the books right now in terms of potential value. The feds know that, and they have good reason to want to see it sped up.
So what happens to the Griffons? They get enough to keep them going just long enough to not create a capability gap. They sadly have to go and sacrifice just a bit longer. I wouldn't want to do that to them. It hurts my heart to force them to keep going, but sadly, that is what's needed. Just a few more years, and hopefully, they'll be given a chance to rest.
Q9. Today you mentioned they’ll likely split CDC and FASSTV across multiple build yards. Do you envision CDC building in 2+ yards to expedite fleet delivery?
That's exactly the concept. We select a common design, and then we put out a build contract for multiple yards, likely two, to do construction on the CDC.
The idea for the Navy is simple. Give both yards—it's likely gonna be two in that case—a three- or four-ship contract, and if they can deliver on time, on budget, and without significant issues, then they get rewarded with another contract, likely a larger one like a five- or six-ship contract.
If they fail? They don't get a follow-up. Maybe we stick to one yard, maybe we add another to try. Who knows? The point for the Navy is to create an incentive for yards to stay within the requirements, build capacity around the country to do combatant work, and help deliver on the CDC (hopefully) faster than currently planned.
That, of course, is more complicated than just this. We have one yard that has experience working on combatants and one that has the combat package officially, and that can muddy things. It also means that groups like Team Vigilance might be put in a situation where most of their top partners are forced to compete for individual contracts over a team approach.
Historically, we have also left the yards a lot of power and say in the process and supply chain. With most yards presenting their own designs and carrying a lot of the work building out their networks, how a common design to be built fits is yet to be seen.
Could a Seaspan design be selected and then the yard lose out on building? Is it a guaranteed build slot for them, and then we just select another yard on top? Does the Navy set out the suppliers for key systems? They would have to in this case. What does that say to existing supply chains that yards have established?
Do they get relegated to just building as given? Are the yards ready to do that? CSC and the Type 26 was one thing; we had a good base to work with. With the CDC? Things are a lot more open if most of the yards plan to submit their own in-house designs.
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered first before such a thing could be done. Many questions remain, and it remains to be seen how it would be handled. Again, this is only a concept. It is not the official plan, so I can't say what the Navy is fully thinking. I have not seen the plan as is, only heard the basics. There are things that I would need to know—lots on how this would work—to go in depth.
No matter what, though, industry wouldn't be happy about it.
Q10. Is Axon offering any of its counter UAV systems to the CAF? Are they anywhere near a contract for their other products?
AXON GUY, I KNEW YOU WOULD COME BACK. I CAN'T SPEAK TO A CONTRACT, BUT YES. THEY HAVE MET WITH OFFICIALS AND SHOWCASED THEIR CUAS TECHNOLOGY. THEY ALSO JUST HAD A FILING IN THE LOBBYING UPDATE.
Rest assured, for you, I will keep on their asses.
Q11. Regarding the Edmonton Airport, besides cost, why is it “considered a far better location.”? Would loading military vehicles direct from a base not make sense?
Sure. The direct-loading point makes sense on paper, but the comparison isn't really runway vs. runway. YEG is one of the largest airports in the country by land area and a growing cargo hub. There, you have just about everything needed already available: freight handling, warehousing, customs, intermodal connections, commercial-scale fuel supply, two long runways, 24/7 certified ops, precision approaches, and full de-icing.
Partnering at YEG means plugging into an entire ecosystem the CAF doesn't have to build, staff, or sustain. And critically, the airport authority keeps investing in that infrastructure on its own capital budget. The field gets better over time without DND paying for it.
As for loading vehicles directly from the base? That scenario is rarer than it sounds. Equipment at scale moves overwhelmingly by rail, road, and sea. Air moves of vehicles are episodic and planned, and when they happen, the constraint is availability, not the 45-minute drive to YEG.
Nobody stands up a permanent airfield—with the ATC, fire services, fuel infrastructure, and full-time personnel that entails—to save the occasional convoy, and utilizing it only for stuff like palletized cargo just isn't really enough to justify the investment.
That's what the 2023 trials were really scoped for. They answered: could we use Namao in a pinch? The answer appears to be yes, with some restrictions. For everything else that might be needed? In most cases, going to YEG is just the easier option for those moments. An hour's drive in the grand scheme just isn't enough to justify it.
Q12. What are your thoughts on Australia hoping to make PRsM compatible with Mk41 VLS? Could this be something we team with them on to expand CSC/CDC capability?
I commend the effort. More munitions and more options are overwhelmingly a good thing for everyone. Having a universal launch system with choices is better than one that is limited to a select handful, like Sylver. No offense to my French followers.
I think we should encourage people to expand the integration of munitions into Mk 41. Availability across the spectrum benefits when supply is diversified, and it provides options and flexibility for what we want to do.
As for the RCN? I think it's overwhelmingly unlikely right now. The RCN has a good idea of the munitions they want, and they aren't keen to expand on it. Part of cutting CAMM was trying to consolidate the munition supply. The RCN wants to keep the munitions they use lean and clean, so to speak.
PrSM is cool, but its use case might be a bit more limited. The River-class will have Tomahawk, and strike isn't as important to the CDC, especially long-range strike. PrSM isn't a cheap munition either—cheaper than Tomahawks, maybe, but not cheap—so that angle is gone.
NSM also provides a land-attack capability that likely fills 90% of the situations that the CDC might run into at any given moment. It isn't impossible, that's up to the Navy to decide, but I don't think it is very likely in the current mindset.
Q13. Everybody is thinking SH-60 but why not go back to AW101 as in Merlin HM.2? Only fools can't admit a mistake...
I think it's a steak-versus-lobster choice. There is no wrong answer here, and both platforms would be fine by me.
The simple terms for the Romeo are that Lockheed is offering a deal, the Romeos deliver faster, and they have a larger user base. We benefit from being close to the American supply chain, and the USN is still our most valued and common partner to work with (for obvious reasons), so the belief is that the transition and sustainment will be simpler and more affordable.
Its architecture is already integrated into the AEGIS ecosystem. Hawklink, Link 16, and the entire sensor fusion are designed to integrate and operate with an AEGIS platform. Munitions come pre-packaged and already align with what we have or plan to have (crew-served weapons, EW, Mk 54, Hellfire) available in inventory, so no extra work is needed there.
As far as quite a few on the Cyclone are concerned—at least those whom I have talked with—there's no off-the-shelf variant of the Merlin that fits as well as the Romeo. The Romeo requires sacrifices and change, but not as much as, say, going over to the Italian EH101, which does share some commonality with the Cyclone. The HM.2, I don't believe, is available at this time. I would have to ask.
The big benefit of the Merlin is its commonality with the Cormorant, and now potential leverage with CMLU creating some industrial capacity regarding the future of the 101; however, those factors aren't enough to really push through the simple, potentially discounted package that the Romeo provides. There is still a lot of integration work on the Merlin to be done. It isn't a smooth transition; things would need to change, but it is the option that is quickest and easiest for recapitalizing our ASW capabilities.
Q14. Do you know if there’s been any development on Canada joining Gcap?
I will constantly mention that we were the first to hear and report on GCAP last summer, at a time when everyone else said we were wrong. We've been following GCAP a lot, and our most recent article is the one you're looking for. It is still broadly accurate to the current situation. Not much has changed.
So instead of me repeating things here, I recommend that you read that article to get a much more detailed picture than this Q&A will give, as it is still accurate.
Q15. Is the arctic mobile base still a concept or a seriously pursued future project?
It's a concept right now. It is an on-the-books project, but it is in the very early stages of development. We don't have a budget, and we have a vague timeline of around 2040. There are no real requirements and no idea when anything will come up.
That's true of a lot of early projects, but it is noted. It is still a long way off, isn't policy, isn't funded, and while the Navy would really, really love them, it isn't a top priority and hasn't gone past the concept stage.
You can thank Erin O'Toole for giving the Navy something to think about here, at least. It was he who made navy icebreakers government policy in his campaigns, but it's still only a concept at this stage. That will change, though, with it officially on the books. There are now people attached to it who are working on refining that concept into a viable platform.
Give it time.
Q16. For the nTACS, is Airbus' H175M the favourite for this contract on the condition that they're built in Canada? Could the Hforce system be built here as well?
There is no favorite as of now. There is a lot of love around, but there is no immediate favorite because things are still up in the air, and we haven't had time to see them packaged.
Certainly, Airbus is in a good spot. The H175M is a fantastic platform; everyone I know at CANSEC who saw it was impressed. They have an existing manufacturing capacity, even if Fort Erie is limited.
HForce is a great system, and Airbus has invested a lot in creating digital-first ecosystems across their product line. Helionix seems like it could be a fantastic architecture, but it's still developing. The H175M has genuinely advanced 4-axis autopilot modes, plus fantastic range and endurance compared to its peers. It utilizes a P&WC 210E engine, which is something that will catch federal eyes.
Leonardo has the advantage of being able to offer platforms for both Phase II and Phase III. Airbus could too, if they leverage something like the LAH-1 with KAI, but that is me being a bit out there. Leo is also seemingly very interested in investing in Canada and is willing to establish a Canadian production line. A Leonardo win also brings a more unified ecosystem when adding the Cormorant.
So, there is a lot going on, and a lot of cards are at play. I think the H175M would be fantastic. So would the AW149. I wouldn't say there is some universal favorite, though. There are several great options!
Q17. Enjoyed our TKMS debate last week. I do believe the weapons mentioned will be “mature” in time by 2035? Thks for details on hull design noise, didn’t know that.
That's always the hope! But there will always be a little asterisk until they are. Stuff like SeaSpider and IDAS both being heavily delayed and having some rough history also makes some a bit hesitant to trust timelines. The good thing about JSM-SL is that there is multinational demand for it across the board.
Q18. With Carignan saying Russian missile systems are one of the biggest threats to Canada, why hasnt there been significant movement in years on ground based IAMD
I mean, there kind of has been? Okay, so, this gets a bit complicated. Right now, IAMD is only just getting looked at as a unified concept, but it doesn't mean things haven't been done. The big issue is that we have to try and unify everything together from a starting point where things weren't necessarily connected.
So, the IAMD framework exists. I have admittedly seen it. I have also seen some of the discussions. I can't go into too many details, so please bear with me because there are things I shouldn't say, and I need to word this well.
The current IAMD concept is being led by the RCAF, and it's deliberately framed as a system-of-systems rather than a single unified approach. There are four components to the IAMD strategy, those being digital infrastructure, C2BM, sensors, and effectors.
The problem is that most of the systems we have that fall into the IAMD framework were never designed as part of one system. The F-35, OTHR, Northwatch, the River-class, the Army's GBAD strategy through stuff like Enduring, CUAS... these all exist or are coming, but they were conceived in separate lanes, without consideration in many regards to truly unifying them as a sovereign, fully integrated IAMD ecosystem.
We now have to attempt to stitch them into a coherent whole, and the honest answer is that we are still a long way off. The digital layer is still being built and is still under development. There is still the need to now bring multiple projects, both ongoing and future, into a cohesive network, and from there we have to figure out what gaps we have and how to fill them.
The operating concept is "any sensor, best shooter." Any sensor in the network—OTHR, an F-35, a River-class, NORTHWATCH, space-based AMTI—can generate a track of sufficient quality that the C2 layer hands the engagement to whichever effector is best positioned to kill it.
That sounds simple, but in practice, it means bringing dozens of different sensors, effectors, and individual ecosystems together and making them work flawlessly in real-time with each other, to the point that we can generate instantaneous responses to potential incursions or adversarial actions.
We need to build the spine first, then work on what we already have, and then we can figure out what gaps we have and plan how to fill them. There is work being done, but it hasn't been under one vision or one strategy. It isn't all-domain, as some would say since it's the word of the year.
So, work is being done; it just doesn't look like it because before now they've been operating in their own environments, not as a proper ecosystem.
Q19. With companies like MDA and Kraken starting to make some noise. How do you see companies like them, playing bigger roles in the Canadian defense realm?
I think the inevitable end goal is seeing more Canadian companies act as primes, inevitably turning them into exporting companies that can build up international credibility as suppliers.
MDA is already there; they have that capacity. Their expansion with Blue Canyon sets them up even better to grab that brass ring and gives them an environment domestically where they can viably lead on any space project, supported by an expanded, in-house supply chain and IP library that they can leverage as a near-sovereign capability.
Kraken isn't there yet, but they're working on it. The Covelya deal closed today, and that gives them a massive boost in their IP and client list that shouldn't go unnoticed. The inevitable endgame is still that they turn into a company that operates as a credible, international supplier.
That doesn't happen just on our own, though. It means supporting people. It means having pathways for companies to run trials and develop themselves. It means moving to procurement models that foster rapid innovation and agile timelines. The capacity is there, but it requires us to put in the effort.
Q20. Thks for last weeks 212CD comments. If Hanwha is the winning bidder, I think we hear this week, and if TKMS, we’ll hear next week during the NATO conference?
So, not necessarily. A submarine announcement at NATO doesn't automatically mean TKMS. There will be a Korean delegation in Ankara. This is the largest singular conventional sub procurement in NATO right now. We always try to make a big announcement at the summit. The project was first announced at the summit.
If people are concerned the Germans are gonna be mad, they'll also be mad if we announce it a few days before. I don't believe their emotions would be tied to time or locations specifically.
If they're going to be that mad, then they'll be mad over losing, not exactly when it is announced. That is to say, don't get locked into this mentality. It is still an open contest until someone is downselected—and technically past, but whatever.
Q21. Do you know what the shortlist of armoured LUVs is supposed to be? And surely we're looking for MRAP size and not an armoured civilian pattern truck, right?
The current suppliers who have qualified are Roshel, Terradyne, GM Defense, AM General, Oshkosh, and Armatech. Those are the confirmed suppliers, but more could hypothetically still be added since the ITQ is still open as of now.
The LUV team, if I can be real, is still deciding fully what we want. An MRAP is too big for what we want; we're looking in the PMV range of vehicles, maybe less.
That is roughly 10 tons or less, with STANAG II protection in some capacity. So, the JLTV, Senator, and Gurkha all fit. Hawkei and Dingo are some outside examples. An armored civilian-pattern truck definitely fits in there. The fact is that the LUV team is still undecided on exactly what they want the LUV to be.
For some, it looks like a Senator or JLTV, and for others, those are still too big or too much for what the LUV is supposed to be. I won't get into the drama of that stuff, but it is certainly a possibility. The Roshel LUV exists primarily to counter this, just in case the LUV team goes low.
So yes, it is very much possible right now.
Q22. In the nss it says that the multi purpose icebreakers by seaspan is up to 16 vessels. Is there a chance we’d procure less and why?
Yes, it is up to 16 vessels. It will be divided into three batches: the first batch is the main MPI; the second will likely be slightly smaller and skip on the aviation facilities; Batch III will fall somewhere between those two. That is the current plan.
As to why we would procure less? There are any number of reasons, really. They could be deemed too expensive, and so the government cuts funding to future batches. That is the most likely scenario to happen. Political reasoning stands as the biggest risk for cuts; though the CCG is far from the biggest target on the board, they are still vulnerable.
The CCG could change paths and decide that other vessels are more of a priority, but I don't see that happening. We have very clear divides between platforms and their tasks. Certainly, they won't cut numbers for nothing; the sixteen-ship figure comprises most of the workhorse fleet of the CCG.
Those numbers aren't pulled from nowhere. They have a reason for existing, and rarely are such numbers just cut for nothing, especially for platforms that have growing value and demand for the CCG.
The biggest risk is political. If they don't want to spend money, don't see the value, or think that there are better things to spend on—anything in the political spectrum is where you have to worry here, homeboy.
Q23. The land ISR project, is that looking at active counter-battery systems, or passive as well similar to the Patria WISPR?
So, the Land ISR Modernization will comprise several technologies, including acoustic, radar, electro-optic (EO), and infrared (IR), to function as the eyes and ears of a deployed Brigade Group.
You are asking specifically about the sensors, so we will stay there. Sensors will be mounted in combat vehicles, trailers, uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), or operated in dismounted or unattended ground system configurations.
These new sensors will provide ISR capabilities from 40 km to 100 km. The sensor suites are divided into four categories: Close Counter-Fire Sensor, Active; Close Counter-Fire Sensor, Passive; Close Counter Uncrewed Aircraft System Sensor; and Close Uncrewed Aircraft System.
CCFS-A sensor systems will actively detect and track RAM projectiles at short-to-medium ranges and detect and track other aerial threats at long ranges. These sensors will also provide the point of impact, time to impact, and point of origin (location of the launcher).
CCFS-P sensor systems will passively detect and locate threats. These sensors must detect the launch of RAM and other projectiles beyond 20 km and up to 40 km, recognizing the type of launcher and projectile, and locating the point of origin of the fires.
Close C-UAS will provide the ability to detect, locate, and track Class I UAS out to 10 km. These sensor systems must conduct aerial surveillance, detect and track aerial threats, and transmit alerts in real time to cue countermeasure systems and force protection measures.
Close C-UAS must also be capable of detecting and tracking fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft out to a range of 40 km. Up to forty examples of each of these sensor systems will be procured.
Lastly, new unmanned systems will also be procured. The C-UAS system will comprise two NATO Class 1 Mini UAS (maximum take-off weight per aircraft is 25 kg) and a ground control system linked to the ISR network.
These will be broken down into two categories: Light and Mobile.
The system will be employed at company, battalion, and brigade levels to conduct day and night aerial reconnaissance, detect, recognize, identify, track, and provide targeting information. Most of these systems must be “mobile” and transported by vehicle or trailer.
“Light” variants must be soldier-portable to support dismounted, airmobile, and airborne operations. The light variant system must weigh less than 31 kg (including one aircraft, payload, and GCS). The project is looking to acquire up to thirty-five mobile systems and ten light systems.
That's the simple rundown. Hope it helps!
Q24.Would it be cheaper in the long run at this point to just light all the Cyclones on fire or just use them for SAR, and buy Seahawks for the Navy to use?
Every option is cheaper than the Cyclone, for everyone. You could pay me to build a new maritime helicopter from scratch and it would probably, at least, equal out the cost. Where is my billion-dollar helicopter contract?
Q25. When do you think we can expect CPSP to be announced? From what I've heard, the decision has been made, so why is it taking so long?
NATO on the 7th and 8th, if I had to guess right now. There is no other day to do it before, and I don't feel like they will wait until after. It really is the opportune event to do it. See above as well for that reasoning.
Q26. What should we look out for at the NATO summit?
Who knows? I'm just a poor fox dude on the internet. Something? Nothing? Maybe everything, if they feel like we need a bit of a spectacle.
Q27. Who won Submarines?
Shockingly, Romania
Q28. Submarines at NATO?
I do hope we get an update on the Greek submarine procurement as well.
Q29. I heard that the river class batches 1 could be armed with an extra 8 vls cells bringing mk 41 cells to 32 in the future. Just wondering if it’s true
Not in the plans for Batch I, as far as I know. We are basically set as we are, I feel. I don't expect many changes to Batch I at this point.
Q30. Is at least maybe a variation of type 212cd e being discussed as a possibility for Canada for later sub orders if Tkms is chosen.Do you think possible for canada?
I have not heard the Expeditionary variant discussed specifically for Canada, and as you can imagine, I have talked to TKMS a lot over the last year. It has never come up. The focus has always been entirely on the Type 212CD for now.
IF Canada wanted something like the Expeditionary, then TKMS has said they would do it. If we wanted something different for later submarines or batches, TKMS has said they would accommodate. That is on the government, though, and they have not shown any interest.
Q31. What is your dream nTACS fleet for the RCAF? Mine would be 120 Blackhawks, 60+ Apaches, 40 Chinooks, and at least 2 Sqns of a Tiltrotor type.
Oh gosh, lol. As you can probably tell from above, I have not chosen my key platforms yet. I am still undecided. Definitely double the Chinook fleet before a bunch of other people order them. I am not as big a fan of tiltrotors, honestly. I find them very niche, and I am not ready to trust the MV75 yet. So they ain't on my personal list right now.
I would love to add something cheaper and more scalable than a medium helicopter, likely an H145M—something that can be built in large numbers, that is highly flexible, and that is still affordable to build several dozen of, and then continue to build on as the need arises. It also could be a great small maritime helicopter.
I'm a big fan of Fenice. I talked to some folks about it, and it is such an interesting platform. It is very digitally and AI-focused, with manned-unmanned teaming capabilities straight out of the gate, a modern cockpit, and a freaking beautiful 21.5-inch display. God, Fenice is just such a beauty. That helps, lol.
So, while I'm not fully decided on what my dream fleet looks like, I do have ideas and things I would very much like to see.
