Let's Talk with Noah (07/27/26): Subs, Type 26 Steel, Infrastructure Projects, JSM, CDC Flight Deck? Korea
Q&A
Happy Monday!
I promosed Monday and I shall deliver. I'll keep this short. Seventeen Questions, about half. The other half this week. Since the Slido is only open until Wednesday, that hopefully means that the other 17 + that gives a full Q&A, if my guesstimate is right. I hope it is.
Thank you everyone for your understanding the last week lol. Hopefully with this, we can finally return to our regular.
Q1. Gonna keep asking this until you answer lol. Which sub was your preference and why?
Okay. Okay. Let's talk about this a bit. I did want to make a post about it. I did want to make a choice on the matter, and at several points, I did think I had it set in my mind what I wanted and what I was going to write.
Hanwha and TKMS never pressured me, to get that out of the way. Neither ever tried to get an endorsement out of me, and both told me a call was mine if I did make it, and they only hoped to eventually convince me otherwise.
I know just about everything there is to know about either submarine, beyond the public infospace. Some of that I still can't talk about, but it is important to note, because I have had as much information as I have needed to make a call.
And I couldn't. That might feel like a cop-out, but I legitimately couldn't decide which one was objectively better in my opinion. My preference was for an amalgamation of both of them lol, because then I would have solved the things that did matter.
Sensors? Not really a difference. Battery/AIP systems? Broadly comparable. Both have similar architecture. Range? Endurance? Both are broadly similar too. The real thing, and I've reiterated this before, is that both the 212CD and KSS-III, in all I know, going down to very specific figures, are broadly comparable to each other.
I swapped several times over the last two years, and each offered things I cared for. I like the use of non-magnetic steel. I thought having a VLS was a very important piece of future-proofing. I thought both relationships offered their own unique avenues of cooperation, and knowing that the Korean relationship when it comes to defence is likely lost now with what is going on hurts me greatly.
I still can't really say I have a preference, because in the general sense of things, both platforms are broadly similar in capabilities to the point that the preferences are highly specific decisions to amplify certain capabilities, but I don't know which ones I would pick if I had to do it.
Similar hypothetical ranges, endurance. Depth of the 212CD is higher than most expect, so if you're concerned there, it isn't that different. It gets to the point of pedantry. Both have excellent sonar systems, with some differences but not enough to lean. Thales versus Hensoldt masts, you're really arguing at the razor.
Both have excellent AIP and battery systems, with world-class providers. Torpedo stores? Similar. Crewing space when you get the full numbers? Similar. Similar capacity for Special Forces embarking. Both are highly automated MUM-T ready platforms.
The things that are different are the things that get me the most. That's the thing. I can't say I have a partnership preference, to prioritize one country over the other. I have lots of friends on either side, and I think both offered a lot.
The Korean hurts more, because we won't get it back. That's gone. It's over. That freaking hurts and a part of me, maybe selfishly, laments some of the things there that could have been. A part of me wanted to chase that hard, especially when it came to the shipbuilding investments. I don't care about hydrogen vehicles.
Maybe it's on me, and my own indecisiveness, but I spent a year locked in submarines on the daily, and a part of me feels it is a failure I never gave an endorsement to someone. But even now I feel very conflicted on things, because I have grown to love both platforms a lot.
A split fleet was never going to work, ever. I adamantly fought against it, but a part of me does wish maybe that reality could happen somewhere. I thought I would nail a choice down before the decision was made, but I just couldn't and I still don't know if I could. I'm sorry.
Q2. Is Canada upgrading and modernizing military infrastructure alongside equipment? Such as army, navy, air bases?
Oh gosh yeah, more than most people know lol. Hundreds of billions in new infrastructure are planned over the coming decade, a lot locked into smaller capital projects (a few hundred $10 million projects go a long way) but there are some major ones spread around.
NORAD Northern Basing Infrastructure is a roughly $32 billion project across four strategic northern locations: runways, multi-platform hangars, fuel and munitions storage, power grid modernization, and accommodations, with a deliberate dual-use angle for northern communities.
Then you have the Defence of Canada Fighter Infrastructure project, preliminarily estimated at $7.3 billion, rebuilding the main, deployed, and forward operating bases so the F-35 can actually be operated from them: quick reaction alert facilities at Cold Lake and Bagotville, IT backbones, and power grids.
Nearly every incoming RCAF platform has a facilities line riding with it, be that the Husky fleet, the P-8, the MQ-9B, or airborne early warning aircraft. All have infrastructure tied to them. We have the new airlift service, plus supporting infrastructure for northern ground stations and ESCP-P.
Range and training area recapitalization runs $2.6 billion over the next five years and $11.4 billion out to 2045. The Ammunition Capability Expansion Program (ACE-P), which we talked about a few weeks ago, is another $5.8 billion to 2045, with new magazines and depot work from Dundurn to Bedford. We also have purpose-built artillery infrastructure for the new self-propelled howitzers, multi-fleet maintenance facilities for the incoming vehicle families like DAME, including heated Arctic facilities at Resolute Bay.
The A/B Jetty Recapitalization Project is still ongoing as A Jetty is still out to 2031. There is $800 million on the books covering new maintenance and storage facilities for LVM, ERC, CHER, and ACSV as well.
If there is a new platform coming in, there is almost always a new line for dedicated infrastructure for them. Infrastructure remains a large chunk of the planned expenditure over the next decade, by far the largest. I should really do a bigger piece on it, because you guys the last few weeks have been really interested in it.
Q3. What’s going on with ATGMs so far? I like Akeron over SPIKE personally (mostly because Israel, but oh well) but what do you think?
I wrote about it here. You can find the wider context here. The Land Anti-X (LAX) project aims to acquire a fifth-generation family of missiles capable of providing both dismounted and mounted anti-tank and anti-structure capabilities to the Canadian Army.
LAX is divided into three categories - PAX-R, PAX-M (with a dash so it's different), and MAX-M. The requirements of the three are fairly simple:
PAX-R: A short-range, dismounted, man-portable ATGM capable of targeting structures or armoured vehicles in the 800-1000m range.
PAX-M: Same as PAX-R, a dismounted ATGM capability, but at ranges out to 4-5km; essentially a repeat of the PAXM UOR.
MAX-M: Unlike the other two, MAX-M aims to acquire a mounted, long-range ATGM capability for Canada's armoured and rotary fleets out at ranges of 8km+. That includes future nTACS platforms and the future ACV-W fleets.
As of now, an RFI for LAX is aimed for either this year or next year, with a contract award set for 2027/2028. The hope is for deliveries to begin before 2030, likely 2028/2029. My personal preference? I really like Akeron, but the current demands align very, very well to the SPIKE family.
On a fundamental level, the answer should be what we can get the license to make here, as I consider a modern ATGM to be a critical, holy munition that should be locked down and domestically produced if possible. I think Akeron has a better chance at that than SPIKE. MBDA is fairly open to such things; they explored CAMM here at one point before we ditched it. I bet we could convince them.
Q4. Do you think that once CANSOFCOM gets their Blackhawks, the RCAF and Lockheed use that logistics pipeline to try and push the Seahawk harder?
Two steps behind. They're already utilizing one another to justify each other lol. It's just a matter of who you're talking with and what the conversation is about. Both are cutting so tight to each other, and moving so quickly concurrently, that they both sort of act as a tandem, infinite loop in trying to use one to justify the other.
Does that make sense?
Q5. Is there realistically any chance Korea can win any remaining CAF contracts (MBTs, IFVs, SPGs, etc.), or is the CAF/PMO's European predisposition too great?
There is always a chance until there isn't, but it is low. It always has been. K9 isn't what we've really wanted or put ahead; I hear more about Boxer than K9. Redback has a chance, but it'll be hard when Rheinmetall is also teasing domestic production. K2 might have a chance, but breaking from the Leopard ecosystem will be monumentally difficult and again, HDFM/MCAV is really looking hard at ecosystems and common suppliers.
That makes any choice a potential tandem. That makes things complicated for Hanwha and Hyundai Rotem, if they decide to go in and try together.
If Hanwha won CPSP, and there was a real commitment to domestic work, then we would be talking differently, but that's out now and so...
Q6. With closer ties with the EU and our European NATO allies, will there be more NATO use of CFB Goose Bay?
There have been some discussions of it. One thing Canada has is land, and that in itself is a commodity many don't have. Large ranges, vast amounts of unusable land that could be better aligned to collective research, training, and testing purposes.
Think places like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Vast spaces where we can do a lot of cool stuff, if only the vision and mentality are there. Our European allies are greatly interested in that kind of stuff, as are our Indo-Pacific allies. I actually think there is a similar announcement for something else in the pipeline, so stay tuned. I think the opportunity is there.
Q7. I recently read that Irving is importing steel for the RCD. What’s up with that? We don’t make the steel needed?
Canada makes plenty of steel. What no Canadian mill currently makes is the certified steel the River-class needs.
The Type 26 is built to Lloyd's Register's Naval Ship Rules, which means every grade-and-thickness combination in the ship requires a class-society works approval, audited production route, surveyor-witnessed impact testing at sub-zero temperatures, and heat-by-heat traceability.
Certified thin plate flat enough for warships is a specialist niche few mills serve. Fifteen ships spread over twenty-five years is a rounding error for any mill that measures output in the hundreds of thousands of tonnes, and no producer will spend years qualifying and maintaining naval certifications for that order book without a government commitment.
Britain hit the identical wall. A lot of their steel for the Type 26 is coming from foreign suppliers. Australia paid a premium to get Port Kembla certified and delivering. Canada made little equivalent investment, so the plate is bought abroad while Canadian content flows through processing and logistics instead.
If we wanted to change that, we always could. Nothing is stopping us. It just isn't really worth the time or investment for what little there is. That is part of why TKMS buying steel from us and trying to get things tolling is seen so seriously. It's a major commitment to get a yard producing naval steel and being certified.
Irving's contract award to Russel Metals covers supply, traceability, and just-in-time delivery of plates and profiles, which is still great for them, but Russel is a distributor, not a mill. That is about where we've capped off for now. If the feds want to change that? They have to make that move.
Q8. Remember to take breaks, watch your health and take care of yourself.
My biggest weakness. Breaks.
Q9. Will the CH-146s be offered to provinces after their retirement? I would like to see them used for firefighting or rescue. The US does this - I think it's smart.
No, they'll likely be sent to the scrapper. At least I have never heard anything about those plans. The Griffon isn't young, and despite GLLE, their airframes have time on them. It isn't really worth it to go through the conversion of such for a role they aren't intended for. Let them rest.
Q10. I keep seeing people say we need more JSS orders, but as far as I can tell, Ro-Ros, and a multipurpose AHTS/ARS would likely be a more immediate auxiliary need.
You could make a justification for all of them. I certainly have. The question is, do those vessels you mention need to be Navy? Does the Navy need to manage a Ro-Ro fleet? Or are there better options? Is a Canadian Ro-Ro fleet strictly a military platform? Or is it a multi-departmental asset, managed by its own department or maybe a private operator, that we have on call if we ever need it, but not beholden to the limited sealift we might need in a year?
We need more JSS because we want to have the capacity to reliably support task forces both expeditionary and on both coasts. Two JSS ships don't provide that. It was the minimal number that maintained a presence on both coasts.
It isn't enough, especially because I think the JSS will prove itself far more capable than people expect, and it will add more tasks you might not predict in the future. So more JSS, more Ro-Ros. The support fleet really just needs more, and there are pathways to that that aren't just giving the Navy everything.
Q11. Procurement of equipment is super sexy and what everybody wants to talk about. Can you speak to the recapitalization of defence infrastructure at legacy bases?
See above! Also here.
Q12. Excited to see JSM paired with MQ-9 and Canada considering more MQ-9s? Love to see AEW-C and ASW pods. Are there jamming pods for threat environments?
Angry Kitten is what you want. The US Air Force first flew an MQ-9 carrying the ALQ-167 pod in April back in 2023, with General Atomics completing the integration in under nine months.
It was originally developed by the Georgia Tech Research Institute; the pod uses machine-learning software to select the optimal jamming technique against ground and airborne threats and self-corrects if needed. It originally started life as a training aggressor system, but it performed well enough that they recommended converting four of them into combat pods for genuine electronic attack.
Jamming pods give Guardian real value as a persistent stand-off electronic-attack contributor. They're cheap, long-endurance platforms that force an adversary's attention and complicate their planning.
What it does not do is make a slow, unstealthy, medium-altitude UAS survivable inside a modern integrated air-defence environment. Guardian works as an escort jammer and missile truck operating from outside the threat ring, forcing adversaries to expend more assets and buying their attention.
That's why CDSEA still wants a larger platform. More power. More SWaP-C margins, better capabilities. What the Guardian can do is play support, make someone's day shitty, and provide coverage and persistence other platforms can't.
Q13. Re-upping from last week: how is the PRes feeling about Army modernization? I worry that it's having its kit and role dictated to it by the Manoeuvre Division.
I don't think I can speak to that. I am not a Reservist, and I don't feel it's my place to fully speak on their behalf. We have many readers here who I'm sure are open to sharing their thoughts. I can speak a bit briefly and say there are genuine worries among some, of course; Army Mod so far has treated the PRes as a problem down the road. No one denies that.
But I do see general excitement among people, and a hopefulness I have not seen ever before, and that says a lot I feel. I think things will be a bit rough for a while, but there is hope that things will look up.
Q14. Is Patriot with PAC-3 MSE for land-based BMD, and the RCN getting on board with Mk 41 integration a likely path forward?
I don't think the RCN has any interest right now. They're happy with what's planned. I think for land-based systems, as I said last week, Patriot remains a very likely option. We still operate in a bilateral, continental environment where IAMD still very much calls for increased levels of commonality and integration.
Even if outside NORAD, you can't escape that environment, and when discussing stuff like this, you'll always need to ask what's available, what fits, and what provides the best chance of preventing success for our adversaries, and right now Patriot fits that more than others.
Q15. What length Mk 41 VLS is the RCN looking at for CDC?
Strike-length would be ideal, I can say that. Whether it is a requirement? I don't know.
Q16. Do you think expanding the flight deck and hangar of CDC to full helicopter capacity is worth it?
Not really, not with how the future is looking. The flight deck I think should have some capacity to support manned rotary aircraft. Not a Cyclone or anything, but something. The hangar can stay UAS. I think that fits better for CDC as we see it.
These aren't dedicated ASW assets, even if they have an ASW capability, so they don't need an ASW helicopter. The times they will need a manned helicopter, especially if they stick to their primary role as continental assets, are limited and can be fulfilled by having a flight deck capable of supporting a small helicopter like a 145M or CCG 429.
We've shown a lot this year that UAS can provide significant capabilities as ISTAR platforms, supporting ASW, and MCM. That will hopefully only get better as the years go on and we onboard more stuff, like dedicated MCM USVs, lightweight UUVs, and a proper, layered fleet of UAS stretched across the Navy.
For what they are? I think UAS are fine, especially if it means more elsewhere.
Q17. You posted a press release on putting the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) weapon system onto MQ-9B. Any chance of us buying these? Say several hundred?
Not several hundred, but you are in luck
Amongst my reservist peers - tend to be worried. A further split from kit, opportunities and training. Add in the worry about being relegated to glorified "sandbag battalions" and not doing the army shit they want to do. I personally tend to be cautious optimistic but Im really hoping we get some sort of direction soon to clear the air.
I feels your angst about loosing the opportunities we could have had with the Koreans, and I share it. Maybe growing our ties with our NATO allies was the right decision, but we will never know, will we? And that sucks. I can't help thinking that we had plenty other opportunities to connect with Germany and Norway, but the chance to connect to Korea was something much more rare and special. Thanks for taking us inside your thinking about CPSP, that was enlightening.