Let's Talk with Noah (08/01/26): DAME Mortars, DCC, Is The River-Class A Destroyer?, Grizzly, Helmets, P8, Future JSS
Q&A
Happy Friday!
This week is especially different. A very unique set of questions leads us in. I was shocked, despite the dominance, that there weren't any real UAS questions here. Colour me surprised! I went into tbis ready lol.
Anywho, gonna keep this intro short this week! Let's jump into things.
Q1. I was really impressed with the Grizzly 10x10 RCH unveiled at CANSEC. Any news on how it was received by the government /Army?
Like many things the answer is fairly boring overall. There are some who love it, some who hate it and a lot of folks in between. I have not seen a universal consensus on any solution, but what I have seen is that when it comes to IFM, is that almost every field has its own supporters.
There are people who love Grizzly but also a fair few who love the idea of Boxer for multinational commonality. There is a very healthy group who would rather a proper tracked solution like K9, people who really like Archer. I've seen people be fairly supportive of a cheaper, more expendable system like the Ukrainian Bohdana.
Each has their own group of supporters, and each is fairly healthy. When it comes to the future of Artillery, there is a lot of varying philosophy to what we need, and whether we're preparing right for the Army we want to have.
Armoured versus Unarmoured, Tracked versus Wheeled. Do we expend the extra money on buying a platform with the latest technologies? Or is it better to shift to a model of cheaper, less boutique, but more scalable systems that could be pumped out en masse? Is that something the Army needs to have? Is it worth it to have this on something like a LAV chassis? Does the extra protection matter more in the modern context? Or is it bulk that, at the end of the day, won't provide the survivability hoped?
I am a fan myself of an 80% system, something scalable, manufactured quickly, and can take advantage of existing platforms in service over acquiring new platforms. That's just me. I also would be fine with a mix model, with select high-end, expeditionary systems backed by a system that can supplement them in bulk, can be manufactured here, and can be pumped out in double digits.
If I had to choose one I heard most about? Personally, it would be Boxer. There is lots of love for getting the proper RCH-155 if that's the route we're going.
Q2. To enhance CAF Arctic capabilities, why is DAME not up-armed with armour and mortar and AAW versions to help defend Canadian and allied Arctic territory?
Well, the first thing to ask is what are we trying to do with DAME? At the end of the day we're talking about a Utility vehicle in the same vein as LUV. DAME isn't intended to be an armoured platform, because we still need a fleet of arctic-capable utility vehicles beyond what a wheeled platform can provide. We did test wheeled platforms like Sherp, didn't work out as well.
Second to ask is what for? What do we need a DAME mortar for? These are domestic vehicles. You won't see them outside Canada. So the threat analysis shifts from an expeditionary environment against a peer to a domestic environment in conflict, and in that domestic environment the value of a Mortar platform is really non-existent.
We won't be seeing major, ground-based incursions into the Arctic, not in the sense of significant Russian, Chinese, or whoever you feel like forces being dedicated to try and seize ground at scale.
That doesn't happen. It would be more effective to do just about anything else. The primary threat vectors exist in the grey-zone, the potential risk of growing Chinese investments in the Arctic being used as leverage, the growth of research activities in the Arctic being used as intelligence gathering and mapping, the potential threat of growing commercial activities, especially in the future things like fishing.
You'll have folks screaming for days on what is an actual concern or not. Trust me, been there, sat through it. Get a group of Arctic researchers into a room and give them a billion years to come to a consensus and they'll still be talking about Chinese mines.
I love all my Arctic Academics to death. We have a few here. When it comes to the Arctic, you aren't talking about direct, military engagement. You're more times than not discussing the more personal ends of national security, the human security, environmental, the Humanitarian.
You're talking charting, cruise ships, the growing vulnerability of existing transport infrastructure. Sadly none of these are solved by a Mortar, nor do any of them require an uparmoured DAME to show up. They do require mobility, a flexible platform that can handle things like Medical Evacuations, Disaster Response, and Rapid-Response to emergencies. That's what DAME gives.
Now, an AAW variant is a bit more interesting, but I don't think it's what you imagine. Even the Arctic has risk of critical infrastructure being targeted by adversarial action, that includes things like Autonomous systems. A CUAS package for something like DAME has value, no doubt. Mobile, Critical protection of assets is an important layer between fixed-site systems, wider GBAD, and the RCAF.
DAME carrying something like NASAMS is possible, there are variants like that around for stuff like IRIS-T, but it is a very niche capability that likely is covered more effectively by a proper IAMD network that is likely not including a platform like DAME in the consensus. That's my thought
.
Q3. Does it seem like now is the time to build two more JSS while the production line is hot and they have found efficiencies on the second ship?
I get that idea. If you're building now, why stop and move on? The thing is, these sort of decisions ain't made in isolation, and there is value in time.
To start, the fleet isn't really there yet to justify it. A third and fourth JSS make sense when there are enough hulls, the River-class, CDC, CPSP, etc. in service to justify needing the availability both expeditionary and domestic.
Those deliveries though land in the 2030s, and building the ships first and waiting for the fleet to arrive isn't very efficient, especially in a navy still trying to build capacity across personnel, trades, etc. That's several hundred people needed to crew those extra vessels, at a time when they ain't fully needed and people are needed elsewhere.
The constraint at Vancouver is not space. It is trained trades and engineering capacity, and those are the same people who will move to the Multi-Purpose Icebreakers. Seaspan has always struggled with keeping people and building the workforce. They have a premium of being in the most expensive area of the country to live. That hits harder than most expect.
Adding two JSS now means needing to balance them against a very important MPI fleet that is getting desperately needed as we talked about a few days ago. The same people working on the JSS similarly don't just vanish, and neither does their knowledge and experience immediately. It doesn't have to be a one-and-done environment.
There is also an argument for operating what has been built before committing to more of them. First-of-class deficiencies in replenishment-at-sea gear, aviation facilities, cargo and fuel handling, and command and control tend to surface across the first three to five years of real service rather than during trials. Committing to a second batch now means building the first batch's compromises twice.
Operate a few years, learn about the deficiencies, maybe figure out we really like something, use it a lot more than expected and work that into Batch-II. Maybe we add more Submarine Support infrastructure into Batch-II?
The Berlin-class design already integrates a lot of very important capabilities for Submarine Support, and maybe we decide after operating them along with the future 212CD that we want to integrate more capabilities.
We don't know that until we operate them for a while and gain experience. Which is why the consensus is that a Batch-II can and probably should be waited on so we can get that data, give some breathing room to Seaspan, and make sure we can get other fleets out there on schedule.
Q4. Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the cpsp in the last Q&A. I’d be curious: which two parts would you amalgamate to create your ideal submarine?
Q5. When will the army writ large receive the new Caimon helmets?
Oh gosh, that's a bit open of a timeline lol. If you're talking about when the reserves will see them? Because the army at large is already taking deliveries, then the timeline is a pretty vague 2028/2029, last I checked. That was like two months ago, and things can shift around a bit, depending on how much you wanna throw at it. It's already moved up slightly.
Q6. Any plans to update training accommodations, base hospitals, MP dets, and firehalls & messes across the country? A lot of those badly need upgrades.
Almost every bit of infrastructure that can be upgraded is being looked at, across almost every base. A lot of it falls under the radar, and you won't ever really see it mentioned. Lord knows, DCC has hundreds of minor contracts for stuff like this.
You can actually pull up DCC's recently awarded contracts page for any given month if you're interested, and you'll see what's running. Just in July there were contracts for a dining hall extension at Shilo for $6.68M, a kitchen mechanical upgrade at Borden for $1.39M, an ammo depot fire system upgrade at Meaford for $1.39M.
Six new buildings at St-Jean Garrison for $39.5M, a supply facility at 17 Wing Detachment Dundurn for $9.76M, heliport pavement and lighting rehab at Gagetown. There's even a new 50K planning session listed at Bagotville titled, and I'm quoting the description here, "Mess, Dining Hall and Accommodation Construction."
The work is real, and there is a lot being done, but it arrives as several hundred small awards a year rather than as a program, which means almost nobody ever sees the shape of it. They're minor line items that will never be highlighted or outside a list like this, and if it's missed? That's it.
Where there is actual programming above that level, it's on accommodations and personnel support. The Army is running a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure modernization effort valued at roughly 3B over five years and 18B over twenty, with a horizon past 2045. Most of it is ranges, training areas, ammunition storage and vehicle maintenance facilities, but personnel infrastructure is genuinely in there.
There's funding covering accommodations, health centres and transition centres across Borden, Edmonton, Petawawa, Valcartier, Gagetown and Shilo running from 2025 to 2031. Housing across the bases is getting funded at scale, new Training accommodations are coming to Borden specifically over the next few years.
The Air Force has its own version. The bulk is hangars, north of twenty of them, but the list also includes about five training facilities, five or so accommodation buildings, warehousing, new command and control operations centres, and two health centres.
So a lot is happening, but it's either to itself as a minor project or hidden in larger programs where they ain't the highlight. There is no national recapitalization program for base hospitals, MP detachments, fire halls or messes.
It's being looked at, and far more is being fixed than people give credit for. But outside accommodations and health centres, almost none of it is going to be highlighted or made known to the general infospace. Until quality-of-life infrastructure gets a project number of its own, it'll keep getting fixed one contract at a time, at whatever pace the budget allows.
Nothing is wrong with that, not at all, but it does make tracking a bit of a heavy task for someone like me.
Q7. Will LUV C&R be pintle only or RWS armed?
As far as I know? Pintle is what's being looked at, but there are plenty of folks already discussing RWS on LUV. There's no specific requirement for either, so it's really a toss up to whatever is funded and felt like.
Q8. For nTacs, since there has been mentions of the MV-75 for use in the arctic. I am wondering if you have heard the same/anything for the AW609?
I have never heard the 609 mentioned, and Leonardo isn't positioning it as of yet for any military requirements we have. A tiltrotor is already controversial enough among some lol. The MV-75 already has a lot of hesitation and skepticism on its claims, more so now that Bell is trying to rush it at the request of the Yanks.
I have never heard it brought up at least, no one at CANSEC mentioned it to me. So I'm assuming it isn't on the table.
Q9. Have you ever gotten any Job offers from people? The amount of work you put out is astonishing, and I know that writing only makes up part of your knowledge base. There are whole organizations who do what you do but can't come close to what you provide for free. If you're even open I know some people who would love it.
No recruitment in the Q&A please. At least take a girl to dinner first. I get a few a month lol. Some folks have offered to pay for stuff like that, but I have never made that leap obviously. I have like six standing offers that if I ever wanna get into lobbying or consultancy that people would take me.
Sadly, I like my job here, and I love all of you too much to go private. I believe I have duty beyond myself, both to educate and support Canada’s National Security in my own, little way. So no matter what you are all stuck with me.
I do have an alternative offer to help support some startups and offer advice on how to get into things. Stuff like that I would like to do more of, just off my own personal time and interest. I do want to help people in what ways I can, especially newer folks. They don't often get a lot of support or such, so if I can help there I would like to. Same with doing seminars and shit on a more educational basis. I am no Legasse, Crosby, or Massie, but I can be a cheap TEMU equivalent.
Q10. Any chance the feds & provinces will consider a joint Dehav. 515 water bomber order. Fires are likely a yearly thing & prob need more pilots. Bulk better than ind.
I think the possibility is there, more than a year or two ago. I know some like the idea, however I can't comment to how viable it is as an idea. Water Bombers are a wee bit out of my scope, and I have not heard anything on it specifically.
Again I definitely think the pathway is there to do something like that, and I think there's enough support to make it happen, but that depends on if there is a desire to do it, and an effort to make it work. I don't think it's a priority right now.
Q11. With the transformation of 435 squadron into strictly a SAR outfit, Western Canada has lost tactical airlift. Any chance we get something out west?
I get the feeling. With the 435th converting to the Kingfisher, the West loses its fixed-wing tactical airlift capacity. The Huskies do counter that by bringing some real mass back to the region, but that's a strategic tanker-transport, not a tactical replacement.
That said, future airlift is under active discussion, tactical airlift included, and there's been talk of interim measures to bridge the gap, like adding more C-130 around the last few months. That's where things will come from, but for right now? There isn't a permanent presence planned for the intermediate.
So it's watching what comes out of those discussions that's important to this.
Q12. For CCA's larger platform are there domestic designs that could be considered?
Not a lot. UVAD has Falcon, which is on the smaller scale of things. Dominion is working on CCA, but I don't know how many or what their size and capabilities look like. I assume you're speaking to fighter-sized platforms.
There ain't really any credible domestic proposals to name sadly. None that have really come out with anything to talk about. Despite its high budget and tight timelines, we are still in the very early stages of things. It's far more likely that we see foreign competitors, like Saab and Airbus, try to position their own footprints to try and squeeze in. I know Saab has concepts.
Dominion leads here. They're putting significant capital into things, but outside them and UVAD? There really isn't much at all to say.
Q13. What off the shelf options are there for a cyclone replacement? Do you think we could wait for Ntacs and procure a future design related to it for maritime?
As we have discussed before, the quickest and easiest option is Seahawk. 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.
nTACS COULD provide an option, but it falls to the same issues as Merlin here. If we go Airbus, there isn't really an off-the-shelf model available, and if you prioritize an immediate replacement? You're gonna be constrained by nTACS timelines pushing a potential Maritime option out a decade.
We have two options for a quicker replacement. That is the Romeo and AW101. Romeo is easiest, AW101 can be done if we wanted. Waiting on nTACS pushes that out a few years, and dependent on how that goes, still doesn't mean an available solution that the Navy and Air Force agree is acceptable.
Q14. In the news letter you mentioned rumors of an AT mine RFI. Does this include a truck, UGV, or helicopter mounted mine delivery system?
I can't speak to helicopters? But Truck and UGV-based systems are definitely being discussed. Keep in mind that this is a project that has kept itself quiet, even to me, so I don't have all the details available. I have vague stuff lol, but that does include mounted and dismounted options being discussed.
Q15. How would a batch 2 River class expand vls cell count without cutting into mission bay or other capabilities? Would we lengthen ours based on Aussie design?
That is a BAE question mostly lol. I cannot speak personally to how it would be done. You could fit 32-cells at least up front. That is possible depending on constraints. Previously the Vulcano system ate up a lot of that space and weight margin up front. Moving back to the BAE MK.45 had freed up some internal space and given some extra wiggle room weight wise.
That wasn't the only, or primary reason the Vulcano was dropped but it is now something that does open up possibilities more. If possible, the navy wants a unified design. That means lengthening like the Aussies did is not preferred. It isn't off the table, never knock it off until you hear a definitive no, but it is preferred that we keep all the River identical in that department.
Beyond 32-cells? That is a BAE question, and part of the active discussions everyone is having. It's too early to say what that might look like, but the Navy won't sacrifice the Mission Bay for a few extra cells. It would take a lot to get them to touch it, far too valuable for futureproofing on the design with the current topside margins we have.
Q16. For CDSEA do you see a high chance of it being based on a global? (6500 or 7500/8000) is there really any other reasonable option?
I think for an actual Special Mission Aircraft? It is the only option. That is part political, we are building out an entire Global-based ecosystem already. Building up that common ecosystem is a long-term benefit for everyone involved. Bombardier, the RCAF, the DIB. All benefit.
There is zero sense going with a Gulfstream or something competitive with the Global. We know the Global can do this, we have working examples out of ARES, HADES, future options out of the German luWES program, Hava SOJ in Turkey, and Korea's EW program.
We have a good dozen global-based special mission aircraft out there. We know the platform works for this. We are investing in new things like Air-to-Air Refueling. Bombardier is working on a domestic facility for special mission integrations.
There exists in my mind zero other option that makes sense. If we do go with a dedicated EW aircraft? It will be a Global, straight up. Everything fits that.
Q17. Hope you are feeling much better! HMCS Toronto just came out of dry dock with new dazzle paint job. Any studies or experience show effectiveness or just show?
It's a wonderful callback to our heritage, and a beautiful scheme overall. It serves no tactical benefit, but does look beautiful and does carry a history that the navy wants to highlight more to folks.
Similar to the AOPS getting new murals to showcase their connection to the local communities they've formed bonds and experiences with up north. It's about carrying heritage as a symbol of pride, and showcasing what the navy both does and the history it carries.
Q18. read TKMS building subs for Israel with SLBM capability. Not much detail. I presume indigenous Israeli weapons? Seems like a significant structural redesign?
I can't speak fully on Israeli VLS. That is not a topic one is allowed to question on, nor am I fully familiar with it in details. As far as I know? TKMS expanded and elongated the conning tower to house vertical launch system on the Israeli subs, effectively separating it from the pressure hull entirely.
Of course what we know of the system on Dakar is very limited. That is classified information I sadly am not privy to. I can say that TKMS has offered, if desired, to find a way to integrate VLS onto the 212CD hull without compromising its capabilities or hull design. They, as far as I know, own the IP to the VLS system itself.
We never asked for it though, and no one has asked about it since. So they moved on from it.
Q19. What UUV will operate from RCN 212cd submarines?
Way too early to tell. We legit just downselected. That's a question a few years out. Right now we have a few UUV projects, primarily the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System project, which you can read about here, that will likely work in tandem, collaboratively with the future Canadian Patrol Submarine.
We also have a few small projects for UUV for platforms like the AOPS, but Subs? We ain't even close enough there to begin to say what its uncrewed complement will look like. We're way off that point.
Q20. Has the RCN decided how many submarines will be based on each coast?
Officially? No. If we're looking at twelve submarines divided between the three oceans? It makes sense to prioritize the East Coast over the west given its easier access to the Arctic. If you want the Arctic to have a dedicated complement, positioning assets on the East is the best way to support that.
Don't have to cross the Bering, shorter distance to the Arctic, more developed infrastructure along the Eastern approaches than the West, Higher traffic area. I won't throw numbers, because when I do in these hypotheticals some folks throw them as facts and for this I definitely don't wanna do that, but there is definitely an East Coast lean reasoning when it comes to numbers.
Could still go six-six if they wanted, but I do wanna make note that one Coast is better to supporting the Arctic than the other.
Q21. Do we know what configuration and goodies the RCAF's P-8As will have?
The CP8A will be delivered in Increment 3 Block 2 standard out the line. While there are some additional things being looked at, like the addition of Boeing's Multi-Mission Pod in future concepts they ain't at all funded as of now. Aspirational, if you want a proper term.
What is planned for the CP8A is primarily on the munitions front, specifically the Air Force has a strong desire to see the CP8A equipped with LRASM. That will provide the CP8A (and the RCAF) with a long-Range, Anti-Ship capability out past 200nm.
We're also looking at effectors. Through the RCAF Air-Launched Effects Project, the RCAF will procure a family of Autonomous, Air-Launched systems able to be deployed off both Rotary and Fixed-Wing Aircraft. Effectors will be based on modular platforms with a number of customizable payloads able to support tasks such as ISR, EW, and long-range strikes.
That includes the CP8A, where further variants could include things like Magnetic Anomaly Detection similar in concept to the High Altitude ASW (HAASW) Unmanned Targeting Air System (UTAS) that the Yanks were looking at.
So right now the big 'Goodies' are munitions based. That isn't surprising for a new platform. We're getting them in the standard Increment 3 Block 2 configuration, which is the best we can get out the gate right now. You won't see a lot of future sensors and payloads discussed at this stage, some minor stuff like the Multi-Mission Pod more so slip in the cracks.
Q22. Who decided to call the river class destroyers, and why? Is it embarrassing to be the only one of 5 end users to promote it a rank? Is it really justified?
NATO decided when they gave us the holy STANAG 1166 that classifies the River-class as Destroyers. I jest a bit, but they are Destroyers by classification. The Navy made the final call to list them as Destroyers as their capabilities, role, and intent aligned to what a Destroyer is expected to perform.
The River-class are designated as DDGH to be specific. A Destroyer (DD) is classified as a "major surface combatant in range of about 95 to 140 metres whose general mission is to conduct operations with strike, ASW and amphibious forces, and to perform screening and convoy duties. May have helicopters not especially fitted for ASW..."
DDG adds Guided Missile Systems, DDH adds a Flight Deck. Yes, almost all major platforms have those, but it is the official classification system used. A DDGH is merely a platform that has all of those.
The River-class more than fits this with access to Tomahawks, SM-2, Spy-7, and a 127mm MK.45. The designation doesn't care about number of Cells. You can be upset about that, but it doesn't affect whether these are destroyers, and if you really wanna get into it? Some folks will gladly argue capabilities when it comes to MK.41 and Sylver enough to make this a very complex debate.
There's also history. Canada is returning to a primarily Destroyer-Corvette Navy as we had in the Second World War. Aligning to that history is a great way to showcase heritage and create that historical connection to the public, especially as it relates to the Navy's pinnacle time period.
So there is Heritage as well, and yes, designations these days can be all over the place. Pohjanmaa is a Corvette, the Italians put VLS on their OPV, and CDC is looking to be more capable than a Halifax but still carry that designation. Life is a strange place, and designations are not black and white.
There should be no embarrassment. If you're mad at cells, that's fine but don't let it get you down on designations. It's arbitrary at the end of the day.
Q23. Any update on the Army's Body Armor Carriage System to provide new carriers?
So outside the DICE scope, and these are timelines as I know it. Infantry get the Carriage System starting Q3 FY26/27, together with the modular pack system and their hard and soft armour.
The carrier is modular-sized with PALS/MOLLE throughout so pouch layout is set by role, and the pack scales 55L to 155L. Everyone else has to wait a little bit longer to get theirs. Combat receive the pack system Q3 FY27/28, and their hard and soft armour comes sometime around 2028/29.
So there is some incrementals here, depending on who you are and where you're at.
Q24. Australia just picked the Lynk KF41 for their new IFV as part of LAND 400. How does the KF41 stack up against others for our MEDCAV?
Correction: Rheinmetall lost out for Land 400. The contract went to Hanwha with Redback, not Lynx. I wanna make that note.
Anyways, Lynx would be a fantastic option for MCAV. Rheinmetall has been open to doing manufacturing here (at least as I know) and Lynx is becoming a very popular platform to a number of key allies, including Romania, Italy, and Hungary. It's also still in contention for the American XM30 program.
Rheinmetall's standard play on these programs is a local assembly line plus technology transfer. Hungary, Romania, and a joint venture in Italy. So the prospect of Rheinmetall Canada doing more (they certainly could) is gonna hang heavy over the program.
A Q&A isn't the place for a full comparison, and MCAV requirements are kept deliberately very open. That is a whole post to itself when a proper document drops. Lynx fits the shape of what MCAV wants.
Rheinmetall has both a tracked base vehicle and a variant family to point at, including the KF41 Recce configuration that fits the ISTAR and fight for information role MCAV envisions, but so does CV90, Redback, etc.
Lynx is a viable choice, and we will discuss the comparisons of everyone, but at a later date when requirements are better cemented.
Q25. Any word on RCAF procuring new air to air missiles for F35 beyond maintaining our Aim-120C3 stock?
Yes! Beyond the AIM-9X and AIM-120D3 Canada has also initiated the Long-Range Missile Project to acquire a new BVLOS missile to supplement the AIM-120.
While details are scarce at the moment, it is a project funded under NORAD modernization that aims to acquire a capability beyond what the AIM-120 could provide. Delivery would take place into the 2030s, though the timeline is vague.
The two obvious competitors are the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile or the Meteor. Highly dependent both on the Fighter Review and how integration on the F35 for the Meteor goes from here.
So it exists, but little details, and you're looking at a capability a decade out still, but it is there in very little terms.
Helmets for the A Res should be hitting ur local clothing stores next fiscal that’s the word on the street (Combat Arms units first, everyone else later)