Let's Talk with Noah (07/17/26): Sick Noah Edition, 212CD Munitions, Hydrogen, European AMB For Canada? CDC, F-35 Radars

Q&A

Happy Friday!

Happy for ye, not for me. We have a very short Q&A deapite breaking last weeks question record. Only 15 today, and I am sorry for this and any disappointment that might cause. I'll be honest, I am fairly sick and part of that is me being very, very tired this week.

A fun(?) fact: I have both GERD and Asthma, so whenever I get weird chest or throat feelings I tend to ignore them. I am used to stuff like that hitting me. This week is evidently not that, instead I have a chest cold. It's my own fault. Heatwaves tend to make me sick, and so I should have prepared. On a more fun acomplishment, I get to try Amoxicillin! Yay!

So we are splitting. Next week we'll have the other fortyish questions (39?). Luckily, you guys all urged me (very, very agressively in some of your cases) to rest this week after the hell that was last week, so I was already taking things easy. Anywho, no more life updates. Let's get into things!

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. TKMS pitched that CanCon could be included in future 212CD batches. What do you think that could look like? Could the Dutch expeditionary concept make a return?

I think the primary content you will see, at least from my understanding of what is being discussed, is a mix of Canadian manufacturers' components, be that critical skills, 90 I 7061, batteries, etc., and primarily software and digital systems. Stuff like AI systems, ORCCA packages, simulators, and training infrastructure are all obvious pathways for us to take, and play into our strengths here.

We'll make munitions here, SeaSpider, torpedoes, maybe IDAS, but those ain't inherently Canadian save SeaSpider, which had the Magellan component. ORCCA does have a large Canadian component. Kongsberg Geo has always been a part of the conversation and project. ORCCA is multinational, and part of that is Canadian at its heart.

If you're thinking Canadian-developed munitions, sensors, and the propulsion, then that area is highly unlikely to come to pass. They ain't really areas we specialize in. You feel? We could do battery cells. We could do fuel cells. We could do parts of systems, and increasingly that looks like where TKMS will put us. That is part of being an anchor manufacturer to a program like this.

It can be high-end, just not in the traditional ways people view things. We have niches that we fill, just as everyone else in the program would. I think digital stuff will take a stronger lead on pure technology than other things. I think we'll do lots of critical nodes in the system. I don't think there will be much pure Canadian hardware.

As for the CDE? I don't see it.

Q2. Have we seen a concept or even heard anything from Irving on CDC like we have Vigilance, Saab, or Seaspan? Has Hanwha pulled out their rumored concept yet?

Hanwha rumors were always thin, so to say. There is opportunity there, but don't treat Hanwha as a sure thing, especially not now. Maybe if they won CPSP, there would be more incentive.

Irving plans to bid; they just haven't shown off a concept, which isn't surprising as they ain't the only ones. Quite a few people are playing wait and see, or waiting for an RFI to come out before they reveal stuff. Conceptualizing a design is expensive and time-consuming, and some will always elect to wait it out for things to be more official.

Remember, CDC is still unfunded, with no RFI, a sample timeline, and is still working itself out fully. It isn't too surprising that a few would wait and see how things develop before committing to showing off a design. Even Seaspan's model is outdated, and was when they showed it off. Some people don't wanna go through that process. There are a few others in that same boat for CDC.

They're definitely gonna submit something, but there isn't much rush yet to get it out. This isn't a project that will be rushed.

Q3. Will AOPV's guns be upgraded eventually to match the RCD 30 mm? Maybe during a future maintenance or life upgrade; I don't know what they're called.

Possible. Both share the same common system now. It is a fairly minor upgrade to make all things considered, and aligning on a common calibre has numerous downstream effects for training, maintenance, parts supply, and stockpiling for munitions.

Is it a plan? Not that I have heard directly, but it is likely to have been discussed. There are always ideas floating around for the AOPV. They're fantastically versatile platforms with the SWAP-C margins to take some pretty demanding systems onboard. There is room there, and where there is room? There will inevitably be ideas around.

This is one of the more minor and simpler ideas. It all comes down to value. Do they need the upgrade? Not really, but there are downstream benefits that can tip the favour outside the platform itself, which is where this falls.

Q4. Will all of Canada's F-35s be delivered with radars? Since some are being delivered without?

Yes, Canada's Panthers will get radar. The radar-less deliveries are a US-only problem. Foreign customers, all of us, are currently acquiring jets fitted with the older APG-81 radar and not the newer APG-85 radars where this is an issue.

The APG-85-compatible mountings cannot accept the APG-81. The 85 is an entirely different radar, bigger in size with different SWAP-C requirements, so new bulkhead and mounting hardware is required.

Sadly, the 85 has been delayed several times, and so the United States decided, instead of waiting, to accept radarless jets for the time being until the 85 becomes fully available. Keep in mind that it's Northrop doing the radar, so this falls on them. Lockheed is just delivering the aircraft as planned.

Since we ain't receiving them, this isn't an issue for us. Development of radars, especially advanced GaN AESA, is difficult and prone to complications. Tie that in with the current Block 4 delays? And you have a compounding mess.

Luckily, it ain't our problem.

Q5. For Op Horizon, do we use friendly ports? 100% UNREP? Without an RCN sub tender, will 212CD IndoPac ops use allied tenders and/or ports? (Pearl, Yokosuka, Kure)

Op Horizon in practice is a mix, like most things, not 100% UNREP. The RCN always conducts regular port visits with allies and partners in tandem with RAS from Asterix when available. We actually hit lots of places on the regular now: Yokosuka, Sasebo, Guam, Singapore, Manila, Sydney, Busan, Cam Ranh Bay, etc.

UNREP handles fuel and stores on the sail, and ports handle rest, maintenance, diplomacy, and parts. The port-visit tempo is actually part of the mission itself; presence diplomacy is a deliverable in line with the Indo-Pacific Strategy!

This is especially important when we remember that despite being a Pacific country, we aren't really the best known to many of our Pacific friends. If you're talking SEA, Indonesia, etc., then we are no more a foreigner to them than any other country.

So of course, port visits make up a large part of showing the flag and soft diplomacy among allies. It gives us a chance to show ourselves to foreign partners, participate in collaborative exercises, and engage directly with each other. It's important to make these visits just as much as any exercise.

As for submarines? The answer is the same no matter if it be a KSS-III or 212CD. I would love to see a sub tender either way, but the tempo doesn't change between platforms. Again, on paper and from talking to folks, the range, endurance, and stores on both are surprisingly similar.

---

---

Q6. How does the RCN plan to refuel the 212CD's H2 cells when operating outside of Canada? Maybe a containerized system, then preposition them where needed?

I unfortunately don't know the plan from the Navy side; it has never come up on my end. Domestically, these will align with our future maintenance facilities on either coast.

Part of the benefit, though, to common fleets and common standards is having this infrastructure available away from home. I am far from an expert on hydrogen and submarine refueling on a technical level, let me say that.

Because hydrogen infrastructure is not universally standard, you do run into these issues. It is an everyone issue, mind you, not just us. Containerized solutions are available, same with utilizing commercial, industrial solutions if available. Obviously, aligning things like hydrogen infrastructure is important for interoperability and ensuring allied supply chains can be utilized. That isn't always the case, sadly.

As to what the RCN will do? Sadly, I can't say.

Q7. Could you see Canada joining the new Euro-Ukrainian anti-ballistic coalition to support Ukraine's own ABM program and build a shared European ABM capability?

I don't see it, really. IAMD is inherently a NORAD ecosystem, and that ecosystem benefits from commonality within it. While that doesn't mean every GBAD system needs to be American-aligned, when it comes to strict BMD? There is heavy incentive to keep in that common ecosystem, with common effectors as much as possible.

That's more important at the high-end. Not to say it's impossible, but you are far, far more likely to see Patriot on Canadian soil than a SAMP/T. Lower than that, there is more openness, but for a strict ground-based, continental capability? We are far more likely to weigh that NORAD ecosystem over anything.

The boys in Latvia will likely top out at something like CAMM and IRIS-T.

Q8. For the HDFM and MEDCAV RFI soon to be complete: Will South Korea be given extra attention? Do you see Canada leaving the Leopard family behind?

I don't see us leaving the Leo behind. It is still such a strong ecosystem to be pulled into; even if I have lots of issues with the Leopard ecosystem, that pull will be strong, especially when we're talking about an inherently expeditionary in nature, European-focused capability like HDFM and MCAV.

I can't speak to anyone getting special treatment for anything, nor attention. Sorry. I do feel that Rheinmetall best aligned to the RFI, not an endorsement, but just going off the requirements laid out. I spoke about that here.

Q9. Is Canada taking the Prince of Wales a growing possibility given the UK reducing the navy, and would this change the future RCDs and CDCs? Rename her the Bonny.

It changes it by leaving no fuggin money for either. Y'all get one taste for money instead of depression, and y'all are spending like it's Atlantic City in 1988. She be a material girl, and material girls don't come cheap. Quickest way to end up like the RN right now, but with an asset we have no doctrine for, no aircraft for, but will look good at parties. At least they get Sealift.

Realistically, the chance it happens is 0fuckingPercent across 99% of timelines.

Q10. With Davie acquiring two Wave-class oilers to be fitted out "for allied use," do you think it likely these are leased/purchased by the RCN to supplement JSS?

I doubt it. The RCN shows no interest at this time. Two Protecteur-class ships cover us for the next decade. Best to remember that at best, the majority of our future fleet is in the 10+ year bracket, by which point we might already be talking JSS Batch II.

In any case, especially when it comes to stuff like this, the Navy will always prefer to own and operate its own strategic assets. They don't like to lease. It isn't cost-effective, is often less flexible, and isn't meant to be a permanent capability. If you treat it like a permanent capability, then you inevitably have to accept spending exuberant amounts of money more than you would have just getting it yourself.

There are critical, valid reasons for leasing, but right now? We don't really need the Wave to support the current fleet. The two Protecteur-class ships will cover that for the next few years at least.

Q11. Why all the talk about aircraft carriers lately? We need a lot of things before we need an aircraft carrier!

The most I can think of is that Vice-Admiral Topshee used the term when discussing Arctic Mobile Base a few weeks ago with Joetey on Go Bold? That wasn't even him talking about an aircraft carrier as we know it; it was a throwaway line.

Flattop hulls (see the other week) are inherently ineffective as icebreaking vessels. It also isn't what we want. I have no idea why this is an idea this week? Unless I missed something. We need a million more things before a flattop.

Q12. Do you think Canada could/would buy Sea Guardian, AEW&C, or other capability packages for the MQ-9B fleet? Do you think it’d be a good idea for Canada?

It isn't, like, mentioned a lot, but our Guardian fleet are essentially SeaGuardians. They'll have Seaspray inevitably; they'll end up with sonobuoys. Maybe not all right away, but you'll see it eventually. The Guardian fleet has a direct maritime focus, not its only focus, but its obvious major.

As for other pods and systems? I think it's reasonable to expect that we will see variety in the fleet. The wonderful thing about Guardian is the modularity and the ecosystem developed around it. It is a near NATO standard MALE platform, with continuous, multinational development.

AEW pods, I wouldn't be shocked with us already looking into the GlobalEye ecosystems. CDSEA is also looking at a mix of platforms to deliver an EW capability to the RCAF. The Guardian is well positioned to deliver that with stuff like the Sledgehammer electronic attack pod, SOAR (Scalable Open Architecture Reconnaissance), and Leonardo's SAGE ESM, which is likely to see an addition. I believe, but don't quote me, that it could be fitted with the ALQ-167 ECM Angry Kitten?

That kinda gets into the Guardian's role as a collaborative aircraft in itself, maybe supportive more? Guardian can support larger, manned platforms like the Poseidon, GlobalEye, or CDSEA with similar capabilities, operating autonomously, while able to provide continuous surveillance that manned aircraft can't.

Three Guardians have the endurance to provide 24-hour coverage over the North-West Passage, in theory. You'll hear that one said often, but it's the kinda thing the RCAF thinks about with them. They're an incredibly versatile platform, and limiting our options or potential payloads goes against the core advantage they provide.

Q13. Have you thought about trying two Q&As per week or taking the x number of most upvoted questions, to load balance a bit? They seem to be getting pretty long.

I'm doing that this time! I'm taking a break this week lol, taking it easy as so many of you told me to do. You guys told me to take it easy this week, and I agreed, but next week I'm free to do what I want lol.

Q14. 30mm armed TAPV concept isn't real; 30mm armed TAPV concept can't hurt you.

Oh, sweet summer child... You have no idea how fucked you are.

Q15. What weapons will our 212CD actually carry when first delivered (will development be complete), and what happens with our inventory of Mk 48s?

Mk 48s will likely go into extended storage, whatever is left of them. When first delivered, the idea is to have the DM2A5, SeaSpider, IDAS, and MAYBE JSM-SL available. SeaSpider and IDAS are in plans before 2030; JSM-SL is in the air right now and conceptual, but the idea is if there is interest, that it could be integrated quickly.

There is interest across the board: Spain, Sweden, Poland, and the Netherlands beyond the 212CD User Group for JSM-SL. That gives it a much higher chance than a 212CD-only munition. Tyrfing is in the plans. I have seen the slides. It is a potential, but only if someone has interest and puts funding into it. A sub-launched version isn't the focus; Mk 41 and coastal are.

It still wouldn't be available on the first, as Tyrfing is out into the 2035 period.

---

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!

---

---