Let's Talk with Noah (07/10/26): Subs, Subs, Subs, Subs, CDC, Subs, Naming Things, Why Arctic Bases Are Hard, LUV, AOPS Upgrades, Subs (but missiles)

Q&A

Happy Friday!

It's another Let's Talk! Today! And officially our longest yet at basically 55 questions and nearly 10,000 words! I wanted to try and get everything in. I think I did. Admittedly this one was really hard. This week has burnt me out a lot.

But I felt bad for you guys. You guys deserve this, and I feel I was lacking this week. Minimal notes, no projwct post this week. I felt I was really not living to my standard, and I know you guys love the Q&A, so I pushed through and got it done! And I am very happy about that (and proud)

I also did more Colours because I can and its whinsical and fun. If you guys like color-coding importsnt info, I'll keep doing it!

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

---

---

Q1. Ref the most recent Let's Talk RE: LUV. You mentioned the team still doesn't know what it wants. How is this possible a decade and a half in? Scope creep? Reboot?

I mean, imagine you're asked to replace both the Milverado and G-Wagon with a new 4x4 fleet, a fleet that needs to offer some level of better protection, preferably some level of commonality, and serve as the primary B Vehicle across the army.

Keep in mind also for a long time that suppliers were looking to fulfill both requirements. LUV is an SSE project. It has existed for nearly a decade, before Ukraine, before Armenia, and coming out of the Afghanistan environment with the Afghanistan mentality.

COVID hit and everything slowed, everything hit a roadblock. Ukraine happened, and suddenly the environment had changed on us and we needed to start talking again about a peer conflict. The Army initiated a mass reorganization and modernization, one that's still ongoing mind you, and one that is still in the process of figuring out what the future Warfighting Concept looks like.

Things changed, and with it so did LUV. The requirements changed, the urgency; it was split into phases, had to carry through COVID, and had to deal with an Army still trying to figure out what it is and what it wants to be.

Keep in mind that everyone will have a different opinion on what a G-Wagon replacement is, what size it should be, what level of protection it needs, whether a commercial chassis is viable, etc. There are plenty who think LUV should just be a commercial pickup truck and nothing more. There are also many who want a STANAG IV MRAP, because that's what they see as the minimum protection needed.

And most fall in the middle of that. Scope creep? Not really... requirements haven't changed much. Changing times, a modernizing army, and plenty of personal philosophy are to blame for LUV still trying to figure itself out. None of which is on anyone, IMO. This is just the case of a project where there are many avenues on the table, and we haven't figured out what path is best.

Q2. Do we have any indication on what the CPSP class name will be?

No. That is up to the naming committee folks to figure out. For surface vessels we have history and guidelines in place that help narrow down the options, but for submarines it's a bit more open. I have heard a few: Fish, Values, Islands. Sea Mammals one dude really wants.

There's less precedent there, though Indigenous names these days are almost entirely off the table, so I wouldn't think too much on them. I don't think we see cities or provinces either. I think Fish, Values, and maybe Islands are the most likely? It will for sure be hotly contested.

Q3. How would the ASW on a CDC compare to a Halifax's capability?

Still up in the air at this time. We don't have requirements, nor do we know what sort of sensors will fully be mandated. We know CDC will have a Hull-Mounted Sonar, which is a great addition I am happy to see, but again, not all sonar are created equal and we don't know what technologies or capabilities might be desired there, just that it exists.

We don't know if they'll be required to have an integrated towed array, or if they maybe download that to a container like COBRA. We know they won't have a hangar for an ASW helicopter like a Cyclone or such. They'll rely primarily on uncrewed systems, which by this point is probably better than a Cyclone that isn't there, lol, but I digress.

I imagine they'll likely stay in the GDMS-Canada architecture. I think they want COBRA no matter what to be able to integrate into the GDMS-Canada processor. All that right now is up in the air.

So right now they might have a broadly similar suite? We know they'll have some sonar, and that's it. We have no idea on capabilities desired, if there will be a towed array, etc. So it isn't really possible for me to say right now. Part of the issue with broad requirements is that once you get into depth, you start to run into issues discussing at times.

Q4. How are you feeling about Lockheed acquiring Ultra Maritime? Do you see any large changes or advantages coming from this for Canada?

Closed on Monday, so way too soon to say on advantages or downstream effects. I am not a big fan of consolidation. I will always look at stuff like this with worry, because often there is a downsizing and redundancy period where risk exists to see cuts. Never mind that competition in the space is good: good for procurement, good for development, good for encouraging competition.

So of course I am worried how this might affect Lockheed and Ultra's Canadian operations. We often talk about these events as a concern for the company being bought, but downstream negatives are often organization-wide in nature.

There is the argument that it creates some pathways and simplicity on the River; I ain't ready to say that right now, not at all.

I have reached out to Lockheed America, yet to hear back. My immediate nature is caution and concern for what comes of this, but we are a few days out and things are relatively quiet. A lot of people didn't even notice.

So I am exercising extreme caution, but playing the waiting game in tension, like watching a bomb defusion from 10 feet away...

Q5. Will the RCN get all 12 submarines regardless of which sub is chosen?

Everyone wants 12 as far as I know: Germans, Norwegians, Feds as I know, DND, Navy; maybe not TB, who knows. There is a path there, and I am hopeful. However, that depends on negotiations.

Q6. Does Kraken Robotics' recent acquisitions give them any prospects for manufacturing their own UUV/AUVs? It seems a missing puzzle piece for Kraken.

It certainly helps if they wanted to do it. The Colveya acquisition, similar to MDA recently, adds a significant amount of IP and critical systems under Kraken's banner. SPRINT-Nav for Navigation and Positioning, BlueComm for Communications, and NaviSuite for that digital backbone are all fantastic systems as far as I know, and add a lot of renewed capability to the company's product line.

But like, I don't think they really wanna do it, honestly. I don't think they want to fully get into developing a product line of UUV. It's a fairly contested market, especially in Canada. There is fierce competition in the space, and once you get to like a Europe? It's a significant investment, especially if you want a product family stretching up to larger UUV.

Now maybe they stick to smaller AUV/UUV. Entirely possible. I haven't seen the indication there fully. The company seems more than happy to play supplier and integrator. That is still a very important and significant spot to be. It is still a power position for them, and the opportunities are there for a UUV designer to buy into the Kraken ecosystem for critical components, batteries, etc.

There is value in being that person, where you ain't fully focused on the whole product, but offering industry someone who has all the tools to get there. I think they're fairly happy being there, in that position, over competing with the likes of Cellula, Kongsberg, etc.

Q7. While the unmanned mothership that the AOPS are turning into is great, it paints a larger target on them. Are there any plans to add electronic or softkill CMs?

There are talks, as always, to what upgrades could be put on the AOPS, with the recognition they ain't warships and will never be positioned as ones. They will always have a limit to what we put on them, but yes, survivability enhancements are part of that vision.

What they are? I can't say. EW is an area the navy is looking at everyone for, so I think you'll be happy there. There are very configurable and small-scale drone-on-drone systems available on the market these days for CUAS that the navy is really interested in. ASTY has a MARSS NIDAR on it that has a drone interceptor that's gotten a lot of attention.

The plans as I know are still early, so there isn't much detail floating around; no projects I know specifically for AOPS Survivability. There is some hype for containerized systems to add capability, that COULD have some value, but less in the EW and Soft-kill environment.

So it is discussed, just a bit early at the moment to say what.

Q8. Will the North Bay bunker be reactivated (likely no)? Also, how are the munition bunkers across the country doing, and will they be updated/replaced?

If they have any plans, in any timeline, for North Bay, I'll personally buy every one of you a drink. As for munition storage, you're in luck! We actually have a few, including a big one on the books. The question to how they're doing? Ehhhh, a lot of the Cold War vintage buildings are in rough shape and are increasingly failing to meet modern standards.

Dundurn has the Magazine Area Recapitalization project on the books. That will demolish the existing ammunition storage and construct new storage facilities. The telecommunications hub, temporary carpentry shop, and ammunition demilitarization processing facility are to also be demolished, and new facilities built in their place. Also, some sewer and road upgrades are in there too. That's slowly moving through the process.

All that falls under the Ammunition Capability Expansion Program (ACE-P). This is the long-term program to fix and expand ammunition storage across the country, with 1.5 billion allocated over the next five years and 5.8 billion out to 2045, making it one of the largest individual infrastructure projects on the books. Fun fact.

It covers five sites. Dundurn gets the major recapitalization as above, Angus gets new storage and compounds, Shilo gets a magazine expansion, Trenton gets strategic storage, and the Halifax/Bedford depot gets upgrades.

The whole program is built around earth-covered magazines, which are the modern standard for ammunition storage. Modern munitions are sadly bound to standards that those older buildings increasingly can't meet.

Modern munitions come with increasingly complex electronics and energetics that need climate control, humidity management, and proper compatibility separation, none of which the Cold War vintage infrastructure was designed for.

ACE-P lacks a lot of details that I know of. I can't say how extensive things will be, but there are at least significant plans in development to support platforms like HIMARS, IFM, and the future Tanks. All of which demand increasingly more infrastructure in place, especially when trying to build war stock of munitions.

Q9. Do you think other procurement decisions and projects could start moving faster once CPSP and the fighter review are over with?

AHHHH, careful. The Fighter Review is not a procurement. There is no procurement outcome that comes from the Fighter Review, merely a set of recommendations for the government to follow. That could include the recommendation to enter negotiations with a single supplier like Saab, could recommend a competition, but careful conflating the Fighter Review to a procurement. Two different things, and the effects on the wider system are both affecting different ends.

Anytime a big project closes, it frees up staff. There is a serious problem getting enough people to staff projects, so something like CPSP, a pretty big project with lots of people attached, is gonna be felt really hard in a constrained system where people are needed. Same for the AOPV closing out. Those people move to places like CDC.

Fighter Review is again not a project. It is not a procurement on the books. Its effects are felt in places like the DIA, but I can't say to how much resources or time is being dedicated to it specifically. I would say its impact, once done, will be felt, but not as noticeable as one might believe. It isn't something I believe is holding up other things as significantly as one might believe.

Q10. Is it possible that the number of CSC hulls gets cut like other Type 26 users are considering doing or have already done? Maybe in favor of more CDC hulls?

I mean, the future is a strange place, full of strange and silly people doing strange and silly things. Any project that stretched twenty years into the future will obviously have risk. Right now the chances are severely low. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have committed to fifteen Rivers. They have shown no sign of change.

So the chances of a cut in the next few years is unlikely, unless the Navy fleet mix shifts significantly? I don't see it in the next couple years. That can change a decade out; no one can predict a decade out.

I don't see it as likely happening. Possible, but very, very unlikely.

Q11. Do you know how many Gripens we would need to buy for Saab to build them in Canada?

Saab has said 72 are needed to make domestic production viable. I imagine there is flexibility there. In any cases like this, the procurement of GlobalEye and Gripen would likely be part of a broader Strategic Partnership between Sweden and Canada, and might include more than just those two (I hope it is many Giraffe) platforms.

In those kinds of G2G negotiations, numbers like above become part of a much broader set of negotiations that can quickly throw them out the window, so we are put in a situation where that final number of a minimum could be different when paired with other commitments or agreements.

In any case, Saab gave their number at 72. That's the best we could have to work under, assuming Gripen is selected. As far as I know, the review hasn't drafted recommendations yet.

Q12. Just wanting clarification: even if the Type 212CD is probably better at littoral, it is still designed to be highly capable in blue water, right?

Okay. Let me clarify again, because this does come up a lot and I think that people get a bit confused by definitions and such. I think many hear the term Littoral and assume Coastal, but that isn't the case.

While the 212CD is designed to be primarily survivable in Littoral and contested environments, that doesn't limit it to being a littoral platform. What it does is sacrifice aspects of Oceanic performance to better improve survivability.

The use of Amanox steel for magnetic protection directly hinders depth performance compared to a High Yield Submarine. That's metallurgy. The Diamond-Shaped hull affects drag on the sub at high speeds that taxes passive noise and endurance. How much? I don't know, because that's classified information to all of us.

The 212CD has a range exceeding 8000nm. It has an endurance exceeding five weeks. Both it and the KSS-III have more concern with available stores than anything when discussing their theoretical maximums. Modern AIP/Li-ion Submarines are monsters.

While not optimized for an open-ocean environment, never conflate that to can't or won't. The CD at the end of the day will still be a highly capable submarine with the range and endurance to operate in open ocean, and likely do perfectly fine in that environment. Same as the KSS-III could operate in the Arctic fine, but isn't optimized as well as the 212CD might be.

That comes with the natural tradeoffs of choosing platforms optimized for certain environments. It also comes with acknowledging that this question can get quite deep, but we ain't gonna compare battery cells here, lol.

Q13. Can you expand on the deal being offered by Lockorsky to replace the Cyclones? Would this just be a discount or a 1 to 1 replacement at cost?

I can't fully speak to the deal, other than that it exists and had some sort of discount. Other than that? I am not privy to that information, as it was a solicitation by Lockheed to the Feds. Sadly, that information belongs to only a select few.

Also, if I did and I gossiped on very intricate details like specific financial information, I feel I would get in a lot of trouble. I feel that is very private info to leak, and would likely get a lot of people in trouble for telling me. Protecting people comes first. Info like that leaking out can be easily traced back to people. Not worth the risk on my end.

If a major paper wants to do that, because lord knows they ain't gonna get in trouble for leaks like that, then power to them, but not this boy. They'll beat my ass in.

Q14. Case for the AW159 Wildcat on CDC. Would be very beneficial in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago for ASW, ASuW. Commonality with allies UK & SK. Smaller footprint.

Commonality should come from something like nTACS, IMO. You can make the commonality case for our primary ASW helicopter, but for any sort of secondary platform, especially one for like CDC, I would be looking to align for nTACS. Admittedly, the Wildcat isn't my first choice there.

I think in most cases, if a CDC needs an ASW helicopter, then that could fall on the likely future Romeo, which won't be often, and for something below that? Honestly, I think a small platform like the H145M could do extremely well. A maritime variant exists; it provides a fairly capable Anti-Surface capability for its size. An extremely flexible platform that can be rapidly configured for a multitude of different roles, built with Manned-Unmanned Teaming already a focus, which for a platform like CDC that wants to leverage Autonomous Systems.

Would also be great for something like the AOPS, IMO. I just don't know if CDC needs an ASW platform like Wildcat. If we get a second Maritime Helicopter, my idea is something small, cheap, and highly flexible.

Q15. For nTACS medium-lift helicopter, I can only think of the H160M and H175M. Are there other options that can compete?

In the Airbus lineup? Because companies like Bell, Leonardo, and Lockorsky all have options that could fit. AW149, MV-75, etc. Airbus is focusing on advertising the 175M to fulfill our requirements. We're looking more increasingly in the Super-Medium category, but until we have an RFI, it is hard to say exactly what is wanted.

My expectation talking is in the Super-Medium category, which leaves Airbus with the 175M. They have options, because the 160M could still fit if Blackhawk can, but Airbus is choosing to focus on the 175M. The H225M is too big for what nTACS is looking for, despite one specific person here really, really wanting it. You know who you are.

Q16. What would you name our future submarine fleet class and our future corvette class?

I like Islands for CDC. I just really like Islands, so I think it would be really cool. Submarines I don't fully know yet what I would like? I could see Fish, but I don't really like it, but the idea of a submarine named Tuna is also too hilarious to just ignore, honestly. It's almost too perfect for my brain. Sea Mammals could be cool, but there is some overlap with a certain other class...

I'll get back to you, lol.

Q17. Do we know how the government is planning to satisfy the Koreans after making them tapdance with CPSP for years? They have to be pretty mad about this whole thing.

They are mad, understandably. How the government plans to bring them back in the fold? I have zero idea. There ain't many projects in their favour at this time. Lost out on trainers, tough competition for HDFM and MCAV, IFM is likely a losing bet on their end.

CPSP really was the best shot they had, and winning it opened a lot of doors for other projects like the land stuff. Without that? Chances become slim. On the defence side? I don't know what avenue we could throw towards them. No matter what, the relationship doesn't reach the places it could have ever again, losing CPSP.

Q18. Aside from torpedoes, what weapons are the CAF hoping to have on the 212CD? Any tube-launched missiles (anti-ship and land attack) that are currently planned?

Both Sub-Launched Joint Strike Missile and Tyrfing are at play. I can confirm that, because I have seen the German slides that mention them, lol. Both though, as we have pointed out, carry risk, as they are not yet in-service, available munitions. They are hypotheticals.

We want a land-attack capability. It was in the RFI. That isn't disputed. How we get there and what that looks like? That's more up to debate. JSM-SL is the easy pathway; lots of other countries around are interested in it, like Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, etc., so the demand is there without the 212CD for it to be funded and developed.

Tyrfing would be a fantastic capability, but it isn't set for service until the mid-2030s, and submarines ain't the primary focus... so I'm not fully looking to it until I see better confirmation on timelines. A supersonic, Anti-Ship and Anti-Surface munition with ranges out to 1000km would go a long way to improving the current lack of munitions on the 212CD.

I know it's planned. I've seen the graphic and such, but it's still very much an early hypothetical. Would be really freaking cool, but also a decade or more out.

I suspect we'll see IDAS and SeaSpider as well, eventually.

Q19. Will the AMB program be expedited now that the shorter-range 212CD has been selected?

Y'all acting like these guys have a range of like 3000nm or something. The range ain't an issue. No one on the Navy side that I have talked with has raised it as an issue. Both platforms met the range and endurance requirements. The KSS-III has a higher range as I know it, but it ain't in the like 30, 40% range. It's smaller than most believe.

Again, 212CD has the range and Endurance to be Oceanic if it feels like. It has the endurance to remain on station up north. If AMB was accelerated for the subs, which it won't, because a sub tender it is not, and we have no idea if there will even be anything in there related to it, it would have been no matter the winner.

Q20. Will you do a separate deeper analysis on the submarine choice and your thoughts on it? I personally think that it's a good choice either company for Canada.

I will, but not anytime soon. I am tired of submarines. I have written more on subs than probably any other Canadian. I have dedicated significant portions of my life the last year to them. I want to move on and talk about other things for a while.

I wanna talk about other cool stuff. Submarines ain't as fun to talk about anymore. I have other things I would rather dedicate time to right now. Stuff like CDC, IAMD, etc.

Q21. Within a day of the CPSP decision, already talk Canada may not buy all 12 boats, and may complement with USVs such as the Australian Ghost Bat? Negotiating tactic?

It's always been up to 12, subject to negotiations. Part of that is negotiation leverage, yeah; you don't want to tell anyone you're committing to the highest end out the gate, but it's also sticking to established language instead of throwing out a blunt commitment. That is fairly standard in procurement discussion.

I can say the Feds would love 12, same the Navy. Don't treat this as a cut. I have yet to hear anyone who doesn't want 12. Until we credibly hear it will be less? Assume it is still up to 12. (Technically the wording has been 8-12, but whatever.)

We might also see batches as well, with a commitment to 12; could see 8 committed now and 4 as options to explore. I pray we commit to the full twelve. I want to see it, but there are lots of potential avenues here, ranging from awful (just 8) to not great but okay for now I guess (8+4).

Q22. Given the need for increased airlift capacity, will procuring some freighter variants of the A330 be considered in the future?

Ooooo, interesting. I think we would opt for more MRTT before anything, because we could always use more tankers, and some will argue with the growing fleet that 9 (8) ain't enough. However, the A330 is also an amazing cargo aircraft, and I could see the value of a few strictly purchased as a COTS logistics solution.

Crewing is an issue as always, though, and again, I know that the option above all is more MRTT over strict freighters. More versatile, still a demand for more refueling capacity, can still do the airlift role. However, a few freighters on hand somewhere, even two or three, is never a bad thing when considering how capable the A330 is as a cargo hauler.

Q23. Do you know how the military decides how many vehicles/vessels it needs/wants? For example, Topshee saying we need 35 combatants for the Navy.

Well, for almost every branch and capability there will be differences in how the calculation is done, so let me focus on the one you asked. How does the Navy actually land on a number like 35?

The honest answer is that it's a few different things stacked on top of each other, and they don't all pull equal weight. Policy tells the Navy what it has to do at the same time, like sustaining a task group per coast while meeting NATO and NORAD commitments. We have obligations to NATO. We have obligations in strategies, like commitments made through the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and of course we have commitments to our own security.

The second is readiness math. How much of something do you need to ensure you have enough? To keep one ship deployed, you need three or four in the rotation, because at any given moment the rest are in deep maintenance, workups, or sitting at high readiness waiting for the call.

Subs are the recent one we can give. 12 submarines means you have 4 available at any given time. That is the Rule of Thirds, lol. That number though is not universal, and certain platforms will vary. So you need to know how many you need at any given time, and work from there.

The third is NATO capability targets, which are separate here from general commitments, which assign Canada specific numbers of ships at specific readiness levels. Those are classified, so I can't tell you what they are, but they're real and they're in the room when these numbers get set.

This isn't accounting for the political side of things: will, funding, expectations that do go into these conversations. I feel that is outside what you want. Replacement Inertia is also there; you typically wanna replace capacity equally if possible, especially on the naval side. More if you can. River is 12 Halifax + 3 Iroquois, but this hopefully gives you a good, albeit very basic, idea of the logic train.

These numbers also ebb and flow with the times. If governments decide to commit more assets abroad? We have to think about that. Funny enough, a lot of the existing numbers are historical. Twelve submarines has popped up almost religiously since the 1950s. We knew 15 combatants wasn't enough throughout history.

Hell, we've tried Corvettes several times after WW2! 70s it came up, 80s, CASSEV in the 90s caused a big stir. You can find stuff like Brock's report, and you'll find a lot of funny numbers. These numbers, in many cases, ain't new. 4 JSS? That ain't new!

Q24. Can we codify CDC requirements: PC6 hull, 16-32 VLS, 8 x NSM, torpedo launchers, hull-mounted & variable depth sonar, helicopter, multi-mission bay (UAV, USV)?

We do have a graphic. Remove Torpedoes; I have never heard them discussed. VDS is also not mentioned as a requirement as I have seen; only HMS is ever mentioned. Also, be careful using Multi-Mission Bay. That is a specific thing, and might not be so defined in the requirements. Flexible space, Multi-Mission space, not a bay in these discussions.

Accommodation for Payloads and accommodations for Autonomous Systems are also linked but not the same, so you need to make the distinction. Helicopter-capable flight deck might be in there, but it isn't guaranteed. Hangar will likely be UAS only. Gotta make distinctions there as well.

Range and Endurance requirements as well are missing: 7000nm+ and 30+ days. Throw in the 25kn minimum. After you do all that, you got most of the requirements fairly well set!

Q25. Is there any discussion about replacing the multi-mission bay on the RCD Batch 1 during their upcoming refit for an additional 64 VLS? True AAW capabilities.

No.

Q26. Do you know why we have failed to run an Arctic naval base for so long? What do we keep doing wrong?

Is it what we do wrong? We messed up on Nanisivik. No one would deny it, but I want to focus on the fundamental of your question a bit, because I feel that gets to the crux of your question over lamenting the death of Nanisivik.

A naval base isn't just a facility; it's a node in a wider ecosystem. It works by drawing on the environment around it, be that labour, power, fuel, spares, a port that other things use, a town people live in. The Arctic has almost none of that. Limited grid, limited industrial base, no year-round port traffic, no mass workforce, communities of a few hundred people scattered across distances the size of Europe.

You are in one of the most inhospitable environments on Earth. The Arctic doesn't love you. It doesn't nurture. It exists in opposition to you. It exists to keep you away. It is a domain of struggle. For a naval ship, it is an environment devoid of support, full of dangers, a land barely charted, and what is, is often not to modern standards.

Every litre of diesel, every crew rotation, every bit of equipment has to come 3,000km north through a sealift window of a few weeks. You've built a permanent expedition that you now must resupply forever, whether or not anyone uses it. No matter how much you get out of it, there is always upkeep to do, always work to be done, and what do you get out of it?

Russia's Kola Peninsula is ice-free thanks to the North Atlantic currents and sits on the Northern Sea Route, Russia's economic highway. Murmansk is a city of a quarter million with rail to the interior. Norway's entire Arctic coast is almost entirely ice-free and populated. Their bases are extensions of functioning regional ecosystems that don't exist here.

What we have is an island of steel and diesel, in a place with many times no economy and few people, if people at all, all in waters that are frozen most of the year. Our presence there is always constrained by what can get there. There is no continuous demand signal to justify continuous sustainment. All of which feeds into a sustainment loop that eventually just snaps.

The places we need a naval base are also the places where these problems are further elevated. Nanisivik, and any proposal like it, is us screaming at the Earth, raging against a land that doesn't want us there, trying to carve something out of it in defiance of everything. We have built communities like that, but they are surrounded by the corpses of many that failed.

The struggle you ask about is the struggle of the North. It is one of the greatest stories of the Human Spirit, that despite it all we have been able to craft something. We have been able to form communities. We have been able to survive and thrive up there.

That's why we have AMB, though. We tried land. We tried to forge and build infrastructure. We failed. We couldn't do it. So we reject the land entirely for the only place we have left, the Sea itself.

Q27. What happened to Canada's own "Pacific pivot"? Did that basically just die before going anywhere?

One choice doesn't erase everything. Do not despair so much, my friend, even if your heart hurts. We still have a growing Indo-Pacific Strategy, one that is seeing our presence grow more and more. Despite the loss, we have forged several new agreements with allies like Korea and Japan.

We are stepping up and supporting allies like Taiwan and the Philippines through things like the Dark Vessel Detection Program, as well as new agreements like our Visiting Forces Agreement with the Philippines. We have a new Defence Cooperation Agreement with Indonesia, a growing partnership with our cousins in Australia, including a recent Global purchase in support of border security. We have an ASEAN Free Trade Agreement in the final stages.

The Pivot is not dead, hit here, yes, but there are still so many wonderful things ongoing. We are still helping our friends in other ways, ways they see and appreciate. Remember, right now there are Canadian aircraft flying to support our friends in the Philippines, satellites supporting our friends in Taiwan, there is a Canadian company ready to help Japan build out its LEO network, there are Canadian ships there now.

We are still there. We will keep being there, and no one decision erases that.

Q28. 50+ questions, wow! Cyclone's problems. Norway and Australia retired their NH90s early due to similar challenges. Might this form the basis for Canada to do?

Maybe. The basis has always been there, just up to cabinet to take that leap and push through. It is a tough choice to admit a fault, but this government has been surprisingly open to admitting failures and just abandoning shit if they feel. That is a good thing, IMO.

I'm happy they seem able to just make these kinds of calls, so maybe there is a path.

Q29. TKMS design wins! Too many logistical and alignment positives with Ger/Nor to overlook. Now we'll see if cost & negotiations result in the desired 12-boat fleet.

I am confident we will. Need to have some faith! I believe collective hope and positivity means something to the universe. The desire is there. That's half the game in itself.

Q30. It's plausible the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) becomes a permanent fixture and Canada plays an active role? Could AMB fill that role, or new asset required?

It's possible. I ain't holding out to the JEF. I would like to see deeper, something more ingrained, built of common frameworks, procurement, and ecosystems that don't just support but build each other. I don't know if that's possible for us as I imagine; maybe a bit fantastical, but I do often think about it.

Getting into the JEF is a political win, I will admit. I think there is value in being involved and having presence, especially if most of our Northern Allies are all falling under its banner. Even if it isn't my vision, it is still something that plays a role in building the basis and conversation.

AMB is an interesting concept here. It is inherently designed for our Arctic, not the European Arctic as our allies know. The value though is in the platform itself, but sadly we don't know what that value is until we know the platform as a concept.

At the least, many of the allies we share commonality with or are trying to build deep cooperation with, like the UK, Norway, and Sweden, are in it. Same the Baltics, who are now becoming a larger focal point of our European presence. Arctic allies like Iceland and Denmark, who are vital partners to our Arctic, are also there.

Q30. This era is called The Time of Rupture.

Very ominous. Much better than my "Big Money Spend Era". Speaking of Big Money, perfect time for This weeks Sponsors.

---

---

Q31. If Bombardier finishes the air-to-air refueling, will it be integrated to the GlobalEye if we commit to buying it?

That's the plan. The idea is our Global, at least on the Federal side, will benefit from AAR, and taking that leap will make the Global more competitive across the board in future competitions. How well along Bombardier is to that? No clue. Funny enough, L3 had been pursuing an AAR capability for AERIS-X anyways, so the basis of it is built off the platform we rejected. Irony, I guess.

Q32. If the CH-148 is so bad and more expensive, are there plans or a future project to replace it coming relatively soon?

We do have a Maritime Helicopter Upgrade project on the books. The fact is that the Federal Government rarely likes to admit its mistakes, and that they were wrong. As such, we get stuck with things like this dragging out, forced to either die a death by a thousand cuts or fall apart to the point there is no choice, if there is a choice. Sometimes things fail and we abandon capabilities altogether!

That isn't as much the case anymore, not this government really. However, it's the reason we have stuck by Cyclone despite everything. The Navy has no working helicopter, Air Force don't want it, project won't reach FOC until 2029 at best, over 20 years after the contract was signed. Lockheed is losing a fuckton on it.

MHU will give us the path. It is, essentially, the referendum on Cyclone. If we move through with Cyclone? We're stuck with it until the early 2040s at least.

Q33. Could Canada join the UK-Dutch Arctic amphibious ship program by developing an Arctic Mobile Base variant with a shared hull and Canadian modifications?

Ehhhh, careful. That isn't always the best idea with ships like this. Keep in mind that AMB has no requirements, and this new Amphibious Assault Ship also has no confirmed design. We have literally nothing to go off but general size and basic info.

What we do know is the UK-Dutch program is looking for a smaller, ~15000t, Amphibious Vessel. That alone makes it a bit of an opposite to our demands. AMB is likely to not be a pure Amphibious vessel. It will very likely be a multi-role platform with SOME Amphibious capability.

How that looks is up in the air, because traditional Amphibious facilities, like a well deck as you imagine, don't do well in an Ice-covered Arctic. Neither do Traditional landing craft. Something like a Steel Beach, like on the Dutch Karel Doorman, MIGHT be a potential avenue, but already there are some differences.

Big issue: you can't turn a random Amphibious Vessel into a PC 3 or PC 2 class vessel, especially if it's a flattop. That is a non-starter. A Polar Class ship requires certain levels of hull thickness, frame spacing, and specialized steel that can't just be slapped onto a design. That isn't getting into the Propulsion or the Machinery Redundancy.

It edges into impossibility very quickly. If we assume that AMB needs to have some level of endurance and range similar to the Polar Icebreakers, then you're also constrained to a certain platform that this hypothetical doesn't provide.

The Dutch-UK want an amphibious vessel. We want a multi-role platform with amphibious capabilities that don't fully exist now, because you're asking for an amphibious capability for a region that traditional methods don't work in.

You can read here if you want the in-depth, because I go into the topic at length. This is mostly me hitting the basics. It isn't possible in the current forms. I would say impossible for this to be the case with what we know. They're two different platforms, with only vague resemblance.

Q34. Do you ever see Canada producing subs like Japan does? A new hull every few years to keep current and have the capabilities.

No. I think that'll remain out of our scopes. The math almost always works against submarines, and there is value building up as a Tier-II partner over the main constructor, especially if you're producing modules or sections.

I think it's better to accept some things outside our scope, and accept this is one area where we're better playing partner than lead. We got a lot more cool things to build and specialize in, lol.

Q35. Is the Type 212CD range for Canada an actual concern from the Navy capability-wise, or just by non-military Canadians?

Not a concern for the Navy. Both exceeded their wants from talking around. 212CD does what we need and then some. Modern AIP/Li-ion Submarines are, again, monsters compared to what was around even fifteen years ago. The rapid advancement of battery technology over the last fifteen years has fundamentally shifted the game, and it ain't the ceiling.

Q36. Can Canada help develop and produce IDAS, JSM-SL, 3SM Tyrfing SL in the future, and do you see a chance we will with the other torpedoes we'll produce?

I mean, in an ideal world I would love it. If I am the DIA, I am arguing for NSM at least, especially in a future with CDC and a JSM-SL. I think the demand on our end would be there; also, we do have leverage to some degree to push around a bit. However, that is my wishful brain.

The reality is that it would require either significant logistics to import the necessary parts, or we would be building our supply chain. That isn't impossible, Australia shows us it isn't, but they have a missile agency, billions of funding, and a collective desire to get it done.

It would take years of development and effort, would likely require federal investment, but I think it would be worth it. The commitment to Torpedo production already helps build some, but far from all, of that supply chain.

I consider NSM a critical munition. It is one of my Holy 12 that I think we should be able to do here, more vaguely an anti-ship missile, but whatever. I accept also reality is not so simple. Demand, regulations, existing supply chain, investment needed, etc. all play a significant role here.

I would love to see it. I think it should be tried as an offset, but I acknowledge it will be a significant road.

Q37. Does Canada have a future sealift project in discussion or on the books in the long future?

The closest we have is AMB, if you count its amphibious capabilities. Other than that? No defence-related Sealift on the books. Although you can read my opinions on Sealift and petition for my ideas and mine alone to be made policy

Q38. I mourn the loss of KSS-III, but recognize TKMS might be a better partner for ongoing development. We may end up helping lead the evolution of an excellent sub.

That's a very positive outlook, and I welcome it after the last week. It's been a lot, after all!

Q39. Do you see Cellula making any big moves coming up?

I can't say. They are very private, but I hope they do. Opportunity is out there. Sadly, I don't know the people there too well, but they're doing great things. I wish them the best and hope they can take advantage of the UK's recent shift to Autonomous systems to get another chance there with Herne. Would also love to see more of the testing they're doing!

Q40. If we were to purchase a sealift support vessel similar to what you wrote we'd probably need, how many would we purchase to have a good fleet size?

3-4 in my books is fairly good. I imagine we could get by with three, as that provides at least one on notice if we concentrate on the East Coast where the demand primarily is. Adding a fourth to have one on station on the West Coast I feel also isn't bad, but also I don't see this as a navy thing.

I would see this either as government-held assets that could do the defence role, or some sort of P3 arrangement. Either way, if you don't care about the West Coast and Defence is the focus? Three should suffice. Add a fourth for one on the West, two for availability. That's my sort of on-the-spot thought.

Q41. Do you have any insights on Canada joining the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)? It's quite apparent that Canada wants a closer relationship with Arctic allies.

See above!

Q42. Thoughts on when the full 212CD sonar suite will be public? Will it have a flank sonar array? What about a towed array? I don't think the 212A has a tail.

Will have a Flank, I believe; no clue on the others. I imagine it will be soon, given we are coming increasingly close to launching the first. It's one of those areas still being worked on, last I checked. I have asked, had not gotten an answer. I hope soon, so I can write about it. No clue who they're pegging to do it, be that Atlas or someone else like ELAC SONAR. Keep an eye on MLU for the 212A also.

Q43. I don't know if you can win NATO. But if it is possible, I think Canada just pulled it off.

I think we all did. Great showing amongst allies. Great night for collective defence all around! Certainly we did great, and I don't even think we're in the top five for winners, lol. That's a good thing though; when everyone is a big winner, imagine what that says for the Alliance!

Q44. FFCP is the hottest defence procurement topic besides CPSP. Now that CUSMA talks are shaky, what is holding up the announcement? Will we know this year?

Review ain't done yet. When it is, they'll say. We will know this year, I really believe. I actually think we'll know soon. It's a major review, and they're taking their time, knowing they have room to wait and ask. As far as I know, it's working along harder now than earlier in the year.

Guess we gotta wait and see. Sad truth about things is that these kinds of reviews are rarely quick.

Q45. What do you think about the Voyager D12 for DAME, with it being a little smaller but hybrid electric?

I think Voyager has done something really cool with the D12. I actually used the D12 at CANSEC as a rest stop, lol. I had a chance to sit inside, look around the console, and talk about the platform. It is the company's big charge into the defence industry proper; they got a healthy relationship with Rheinmetall that I hear is working on some really cool stuff.

It's still a developmental platform, though. It's gone through revisions the last year and they're still perfecting it. That hurts it a bit for DAME, where it is the experimental platform of the three, but I credit Voyager with developing a seemingly capable platform able to take it well to the establishment. That takes a lot, even from a company with experience.

I wish them all the best. I bet they can put up a fight. I'll have to do a proper DAME post soon though to give a proper comparison, but I was impressed by the Hybrid System they have going on there. I was worried it was far more experimental than it apparently is.

Q46. If Saab were to build Gripens in Canada, where and how would they do it? Partner with a Canadian company or build its own facility?

The plan would be to do it in collaboration with Bombardier at their existing facilities. That is the last I heard. Bombardier would build the fuselages and handle the integration work, as far as I am aware. I don't know if that involves utilizing existing facilities or if new facilities would be built on top of that? But it would be with Bombardier.

Q47. I would hurt if they went for an armoured pick-up truck. That's all well and good for Mexico, but with IED and FPV threats, I feel SENRAP is the right choice.

I also think the SENRAP is the best choice overall; however, there is utility to a more conventional truck, especially in the outlook of the 2nd Div. Not everything needs to be a SENRAP, and luckily the commonality is there where it doesn't have to be. SENLUV is a cheaper, but still scalable, common option to throw into the mix with the SENRAP. It isn't 1:1. I would like to see both.

Q48. Would we pick some designs from future rotorcraft capability designs for nTACS? Does it directly affect nTACS?

I assume you mean NATO's Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability, and no. It is not possible. Those designs are looking at the post-2035 timeline, and that is beyond nTACS. It could be an option for future rotary options, like the Cormorant fleet, or nTACS replacement down the line, but it'll be too late for nTACS. We need options available before 2030.

Q49. Does 212CD and your comments re: JSM-SL make it more likely that the unannounced customer for the recent JSM order is Canada, and does it influence the F-35 review?

Evidently, yes.

Q50. Fuhr mentioned spiral development of the 212CD going forward. Is that more likely to mean different production batches, later refits, or something else?

Batch Configuration across the hypothetical 12-boat run. Sub 12 will not be Sub 1's configuration regardless of anyone's intent; that's just how a 15-year production run works. Topshee also brought this up with Canadian content. The first few subs would be mostly MOTS, but future iterations would introduce more Canadian content over time, with the hope it becomes standard across the whole fleet.

New Batteries, Munitions, Improved Sensors, etc. will likely run on a batch basis. The Germans and Norwegians have a similar concept. First Boat might not have Lithium Batteries, but second will. Sensors will adapt and change, same with the digital side. The idea is incremental improvements.

Q51. Aircraft carrier when? :^)

At this rate we might be able to claim Prince of Wales, I don't know.

Q52. What do you know about Arcfield Canada? Any chance they'll be involved with FFCP ISS or SCM?

Fantastic company, wonderful people. The Canadian team is amazing, responsive, and always ready to engage, so they rank high on my list. They also have fantastic capabilities available to them, and a really smart team. I think the sky is the limit for them, honestly. I think they have great chances to be involved.

Q53. I've read some people want a 76mm for CDC. Other than the existing logistics of using 57mm now, is a 76mm not worth it capability-wise for CDC?

Depends on who you ask. Lots of people on both sides. On the 57 side, the pipeline is US-anchored and healthier than its reputation around. 3P programmable ammunition is the in-service mainstay and already in inventory. We have the experience on it, the supply chain.

The MK 332 HE-4G is a really cool round and already in service with the USN and available for export, and Northrop picked up a development contract for a second 57mm guided round with an onboard seeker, so there is extensive development ongoing to keep the 57mm modern.

The user base is narrow, but growing. Most of the CDC designs already assume it in their models.

On the 76, DART has been in service for over a decade and has already shown to be capable in the Red Sea. Vulcano 76 stretches reach out to around 40km, and the 4AP programmable fuze is available now.

The user base is the largest of any medium naval gun, something like 50+ navies and still growing. DART isn't just an ammo purchase, though; it needs the Strales guidance configuration on the mount, so there's a real integration step baked into that capability.

Abandoning the Leonardo guns on the River also set this back a bit. BAE gives a common ecosystem to the Rivers and aligns. That is a factor, even if most don't really discuss it too much, being separate classes. Ecosystems are important to folks like the Navy.

76 has some fantastic capabilities, but not enough to win, IMO, against the 57. I think it is the balance of everything we need out of CDC.

---

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

---

---