Happy Sunday!
After a few weeks of chaos, Let's Talk is back with another edition, and our first post-Sweden. Not only are we back this week, but we've broken our previous record with an ungodly nearly 8000 word Q&A!
And boy, we're back in force. We got lots of CDC, lots of Pilot discussion, and a whole lot of LUV discussion. I'm happy to be back to our usual. Things in August were really weird with everything going on, but a reset I feel did us all good. Now we can get back to our usual quality content.
(Quality, of course, as much as I can in the Q&A.)
Q1. Have you heard any rumours, discussions, or likelihood of Canada exercising our option for the 2 additional P-8s? Any idea when such a decision might be made?
Well, we have both an upcoming budget and a new Defence Policy in the works; if there is a place that's going to be, it's likely going to be in one of those two. There has always been interest in those additional two; while money has been a constraint—and still is, despite everything—available personnel and such is also an area where there have been roadblocks.
No one, absolutely no one, will argue against more P-8s if they get the chance. There is no other platform available that can match the capabilities of Poseidon, and the line won't be available forever; there has been a push since basically the beginning to eventually get those two back.
It's an active campaign, but it also isn't the highest priority; sadly, that's where a lot of things like this go to die: desired, but not enough to take precedence over other items, and eventually lingering until it dies. Be that when money dries up, government policy changes, or platforms become unavailable; middle-ticket items die all the time waiting for their moment.
So there is a desire, and folks want it, but it isn't what gets money first. As we add more to the books and look to expand our capabilities in new domains, stuff like follow-up orders becomes more and more likely to slip down the list.
Q2. After the recent sale of the C-130Hs, are there any projects, early discussions, or rumours on additional airlift and/or tanker resources underway?
Everyone recognizes that we have an airlift gap—a lift gap in general; add sealift, too. It isn't a secret. So there are ongoing conversations about what we could look for in the future, like: what do we need? What are our actual gaps here? That isn't just asking about the 130s; it also applies to nTACS and such.
On tankers, we spoke a few weeks ago about it, but there is recognition that the eight Huskies we have available for refuelling are enough, albeit with almost no margin if we find ourselves in need of additional capacity. Demand grows as we add more and more platforms to the fleet—platforms not originally envisioned when STTC was running, like AEW&C and CDSEA.
Canada is in a unique environment compared to many of our allies when it comes to the need for refuelling capacity. Extended operations in the North, especially when we're discussing persistence platforms like AEW&C and CDSEA, require that we have tankers available to maximize their on-station availability.
There is almost nowhere to land and refuel up north. You are talking about continent-sized gaps between places like North Bay (where the AEW&C fleet is currently likely to end up), our FOLs, and where we need them to be. You are talking about areas where the fuel you would use has to be considered in the context of communal needs, and what you take from them.
We wrote a lot on it here, so there is something a bit more for you if you want to get into things. No one would argue against more MRTT; no one. Everyone would want more; that's a product of the A330 just being a fantastic, versatile platform in itself.
There are conversations, but no projects and no actual plans that I know about yet. Maybe some people have some concepts somewhere? I'm sure there are concepts, but I have not seen them. I think that'll change sooner rather than later, but for now, it's mostly a bunch of talk—outside nTACS, obviously—about what to do.
We can't get more C-17s, and lots of people think the 130s are getting too small. We have the 1st Division to support now as well in an increased expeditionary role. This really is the thing that makes this a bit hard, because a lot of what we will need is tied to Army Mod; so for the other branches, this becomes a team effort.
Like, we're going to have the All-Domain Defence Plan soon; we're getting a new Defence Policy. The RCAF does have an airlift study it's working through, so we aren't going to have nothing to go off of, but yeah: for now, it's a lot of talk. There is no funding, policy, or project to support additional tankers, a C-130 replacement/expansion, or something in between.
There is something happening, but that something is in the earliest stages of development regarding what those needs and plans are.
Q3. After the Swedish trip, is there any update (that you can share) about any updated Gripen news?
Yes, and I plan to share it all as soon as I can. I am just waiting on a few things: images, making absolutely sure of what I can share, and such. As you can imagine, when it comes to site visits and these kinds of discussions like we had with Saab, we need to make sure we are both accurate and within our legal right to discuss certain things; so I take a great deal of caution in ensuring that.
I can say that we will have a lot of details on Saab's plans, their feelings, and where things are. We'll talk about their proposed hubs in Canada and their 200+ partner concept; we'll talk about their supply chain plans and how they plan to bring partners outside the company into their package.
There is a lot to go over, and I can say that the factory itself was something I want to go over, including their training and education ecosystem, how they might replicate it in Canada, the AI academy, etc.
Q4. Original plan was CDC contract by 2030, first vessel 2039. What rumours are you hearing about pressure on shipyards for an expedited schedule, first vessel by 2030?
The plan for CDC was whatever the Navy could get out of the feds. There is no policy, no commitment, and no funding; there is nothing on the government side for CDC. Certainly, the Navy had ideas and hopes, and in fairness to them, they have been realistic about their expectations. That's why we have preliminary dates for IOC in 2039 and FOC towards 2050.
If we can get them sooner? Awesome, fantastic. Do we get one by 2030? Absolutely not, unless your definition is a bare hull with nothing installed. That's about three years from now, with no funding, no policy, and not even an RFI released. We could maybe rush five years with shortcuts. We could maybe get hulls if we go foreign, which goes against a lot of the Pax Canadiana in CDC that forms the core philosophy.
It also isn't the main focus of the Navy going into the DPU—which doesn't mean we won't see it, but FASST-V is definitely seen as a bigger priority, as is continuing to move along the River-class and CPSP. When it comes to major platforms, CDC isn't the lowest priority, but it is a firm middle priority; which, as we discussed, can make things harder.
So the pressure on shipyards doesn't exist, because the pressure itself isn't coming from the Navy. They have other priorities; they have things they rank higher on the concern list. CDC by 2030 ain't happening, no way; not unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and builds it for us.
Q5. With Lockheed redesigning the Mk 41 from 8 to 10 cells, do you think there may be time and RCN desire to incorporate it into the first River batch? 30 versus 24!
I would hold off on excitement over any proposed redesigns and such. Until we see it as a marketed product where it is actively being advertised as available, I would temper expectations. This kind of stuff isn't new; also, take note of the difference between additional cells versus additional space per cell.
I don't think you'll see it anytime soon myself; I remain skeptical until I see it.
Q6. Gimme some of them A400M and/or Twin Otter rumours, please and thank you.
See above; we have an airlift study. Twotter replacement falls into that as well, with the caveat that "what replaces the Twin Otter" is likely to be multiple platforms, including what comes out of nTACS and additional, more capable Chinooks.
It could be that more Twin Otters are in there. De Havilland, to their credit, is working to fix several of the issues the modern Twotter had when it came to operations up North, primarily on the avionics side of things; the Twotter remains a really great platform even in the modern context.
But it is likely that we will see a much more diverse, expanded airlift capability up North that will be heavily augmented by expansions to the rotary fleet. That's part of the conversation that's being had right now.
Q7. With the Gripen debate returning, why does the “not enough pilots and technicians” argument apply to Gripens, but not the other fleets we’re growing and adding?
It does apply to the other fleets; it's just that no one ever really asks about it. It isn't just fighters where this is an obstacle. We have fucked up a lot, both through lack of investment and chronic underfunding, when it comes to pilot training; across the board, we are facing a crunch with getting people trained for future platforms.
Those two extra P-8s? Pilot capacity is a barrier. More MRTT? Same thing. AEW&C? A constant worry from the start. These barriers exist, and we're trying hard to fix them, but they're still barriers that are restricting our ability to expand; it's just that no one in the public space really questions if it's hitting the other fleets.
We can't train for the fleet we have now, and almost every incoming platform has lots of people worried whether we will have folks available. Fighter pilot training is a near-decade-long initiative per pilot, requires significant investment (I believe the running figure is about $10 million per pilot), and takes significantly more time, with higher dropout rates, compared to other pilots.
That's a fact for everyone, made worse by the fact that we don't and still won't have a dedicated Fighter Lead-In Trainer for several more years until the M-346 comes online. It's a very real problem with real constraints. It's just that no one, again, really asks about why we don't exercise the options on the P-8, or how concerned people are about having pilots available for an expanded tanker fleet—especially one where we're adding new capabilities like a boom.
That's why partnerships in this space are so important. Things like NATO pilot training and leveraging industry capacity through partners like CAE, ITPS, etc., are so important because they're the only current routes we have—not to expanding pilot training, but just maintaining enough to keep on track.
It's also why companies like ITPS are expanding their fleets. Having a common trainer between NATO, industry, and the RCAF is such an underdiscussed value; that commonality ensures there are pathways to seamless cooperation, integrated training ecosystems, and collaboration on future capability developments that stretch past the trainer itself.
That is the path we are on now, and it's why a lot of what we discuss with Gripen and my conversations with Saab will be training-focused; this is a crisis that everyone across government and industry recognizes as a major issue.
There is a crisis there, and in many ways it is silent at times, but there are many people across the world trying to solve it. It isn't just fighters, far from it; it's just that that's the one that gets discussed by folks the most.
Q8. Is the CAF looking at De Havilland's relaunched Sherpa for 440 Sqn? Real cargo capacity in the North seems overdue.
I have not heard it directly mentioned, nor have I seen platform-specific wording come up. I'm sure smaller airlift platforms like the Sherpa are in the discussion, but I have not heard specifics.
Q9. The G&M today (Sep-03) reports that Saab expected the term sheet for GlobalEye to be signed by the end of August. Any insights?
It is not signed, but I am not privy to those discussions, nor will I blindly speculate on where they are. I expect them to come to an agreement soon.
Q10. I have the sense that the CAF is having a difficult time understanding that Canada will no longer automatically be procuring American kit. Is this accurate?
I wouldn't generalize organizations so easily, and in my experience, it is never that simple. When you see things like HIMARS, that choice is driven very closely by specific requirements—requirements that oftentimes align closer to American platforms than others because of our circumstances and fairly unique requirements.
In cases like Seahawk, too, we've gone through extensively why the platform is the main fit, and some people, for obvious reasons, would love to jump on it. Black Hawk, while more open than most, still isn't driven, as I have seen, by "American is Best," but by legitimate desires and requirements that push the platform forward.
That isn't to say there aren't Americaphiles or that there are not biases in places; but from my experience talking to many people involved in the procurement process across many different projects, to say it is an organizational philosophy is absolutely wrong these days. I can't speak to fifteen years ago; I was sadly in grade school.
I can speak to the now, and right now? I don't see this overtly American bias stretched across procurement as some unified philosophy. Certainly on some projects and among some individuals, but not institutional in nature; many cases come with legitimate arguments.
The most prevalent idea, depending on who you ask, is: "running a competition for something where we know what the result will be feels pointless"; and truthfully, if your hope is to exclude American kit, then many would prefer they not be allowed to participate at all and save the drama.
Q11. What has to happen politically and with senior military leadership to find a solution for the systemic Cyclone challenges and align with CSC delivery?
We need to ask whether we can accept the Seahawk or not, because that remains the fastest and easiest solution to the problem, bar none; that's the conversation that needs to happen above all.
No one, I believe, accepts that the Cyclone isn't a failure. Across industry, the CAF, and government, there is no one who benefits from Cyclone; it is the ultimate loser. We lose critical capabilities even when it is available by virtue of the platform being outdated—outdated to the point that modernization is likely to be a billion-plus initiative across the fleet.
The government is wasting more on a bespoke, orphaned platform that will never have the investment and supply chain backing it to keep it modern and properly supported. That falls a lot of times on us, and in cases we do support that to support industry; but in the current context, that support isn't building industry like Seahawk could.
Lockheed has lost hundreds—HUNDREDS—of millions on Cyclone. They ain't benefiting and likely never will; it is a perpetual red mark on them. It will never be more than a thorn in their side.
The acceptance, to get back on topic, is the acceptance that there is no one benefiting from Cyclone. The few who are, among industry in Tier II and Tier III, would benefit more from being involved and able to compete as part of an international pool of other users, as has almost always been the Canadian case.
To me, there is no saving the Cyclone. We try and try and try, and we never get where we need to be; we likely won't ever. It will be constantly chasing everyone else, constantly chasing the next critical upgrade, as everyone wastes money and time trying to fix something that never should have existed in the first place.
Until everyone accepts that? We can't move forward. That is the first step that needs to happen: accepting that no one is better off with the Cyclone, and accepting that it is not what we need. We tried; it tried. It isn't the Cyclone's fault; it isn't anyone's sole fault. Maybe Chrétien, if you want to put blame on anyone, but man, we're so far past that time...
I'm done blaming people and chasing fault. That doesn't help anymore; it isn't worth it anymore. I just want the Cyclone to have a nice, quiet retirement. Put them in museums somewhere; send them to Ottawa or Hamilton. Let them be pretty and enjoy the rest.
Q12. Will the eventual 4 JSS be enough if all 15 Rivers, 20 CDCs, and 12 subs get built? Seeing recent USN supply issues, will we need more logistical capability?
I think four will be enough. It provides availability on both coasts, which is what we want. Keep in mind that what an expeditionary support capacity looks like is very different between people.
Four JSS aligns us with partners like France, who have much more demanding needs when it comes to supporting task forces. Canada's expeditionary demands can be fulfilled by having availability to support a task force in the Pacific and Atlantic, which four JSS helps provide for us on a near-consistent basis.
Ideally, if we wanted constant availability, then six would likely fill that better (the Rule of Three and such); I know several who would argue for six. Keep in mind, also, Arctic Mobile Base could also—maybe, who knows—supplement the JSS in that capacity. That's a bit too early to tell, though.
Q13. Is the Axon deal in any danger of collapsing given the recent political drama & the trade war?
I don't know if I can speak on that. That kind of stuff is very specific; I have not heard anything specifically on Axon myself.
Q14. Since our CDS and allies say we have until 2030 to prepare for war, should we pay any companies (i.e., Irving, Bombardier, GDLS) to work 24/7 to shorten timelines?
A 24/7 workload is actually not that efficient. You lose a lot of value when trying to sustain that for an extended period, especially outside a wartime economy. Asking industry to take that burden is expensive and often counterproductive; the benefits quickly run out once you hit the first roadblocks.
Case in point, since you mentioned Irving: what happens when you don't have long-lead items available? What happens when your engines are still years off from delivery? What happens when the supply chain fails to keep up with your 24/7 cycle? How deep do we have to go in peacetime to support that?
Because trust me, you're not talking about one company; you're talking about several hundred across the country, and those are just the ones you can support! How do we get German, British, or other companies overseas to work faster? What kind of investments does the supply chain need to go 24/7?
Machines aren't perpetual, and manufacturers don't just have the equipment to rapidly scale production like that, especially at Tier II and Tier III. That kind of expansion can take years to see results, and those bottlenecks hit everyone up the chain.
Speaking of that, workforce is another issue. You're asking to, in some cases, triple or quadruple the workforce—a workforce made up of skilled individuals whom we're already struggling to recruit and retain. That's a workforce that, honestly, doesn't exist. It isn't there. The people to man those lines and work in the shipyards don't exist to double or triple the workforce.
That's also paying people, supporting people; it means adding potentially thousands of new workers into a local economy. Can that be sustained? Can it be sustained especially if supply chain crunches hit and suddenly everyone is standing around? There are things like pensions, overtime pay, and increased sustainment costs from machinery wear and tear, because those lines are now expected to be run far harder than ever intended.
I get the idea, but it's unsustainable. It would cost tens of billions per year in industrial supports and relief packages to still run into a lot of the same issues we have now, building a wartime ecosystem outside of war. How long does that go? You can't build forever. You can say demand is there, but demand isn't contracts; it isn't revenue. We have lots of demand, but are our allies gonna pay for it?
That level of extreme just sadly isn't really possible in a peacetime environment
Q15. Any word on the program icebreakers having secure comms built in from the start? How about the same for the CCG AOPS?
Yeah, there are active discussions. I have not seen a plan if that's what you're asking, but there are active discussions on things like how to implement a SCIF into the future icebreakers. I don't know how far along those are or if they're actively in the plans per se, but they are considered as needed, and there is active discussion around it.
Q16. Is Doug Guzman leaving the DIA this early as bad of a sign as it looks? I understand if you need to tread carefully not to burn sources or contacts. Thanks.
To make one note: there is nothing official about Mr. Guzman leaving. There is one article saying it, and I will not comment on the validity of that article; it's not my place.
I do not know Mr. Guzman, his thoughts, or what his choices might be. Respectfully, I will wait for something official. What I do know is the position he was put into—one that I think almost anyone would struggle with, given what was asked.
Mr. Guzman was tasked with leading the DIA through several multi-billion-dollar procurements, many of which he was thrown into the middle of, including the largest in Canadian history: CPSP, ESCP-P, fostering discussions related to SAFE, the Fighter Review, and helping to both secure and establish the DSRB.
All of that fell on him; he was tasked with bringing all of it forward through one of the most volatile periods of defence procurement, all within an organization with no legislative authority and no true power invested into it that has been codified by legislation.
That in itself is a Herculean task, one that would burn out almost anyone who had to carry it: having to build an organization from near scratch through several major procurements, all happening concurrently with each other.
I don't know what is going on, and I won't speculate. I think the job he has done has been commendable, and I think he deserves a mountain of praise for going into it knowing the struggle awaiting him; that says a lot to me.
Q17. With the CDC requirements discussion, I’ve heard conflicting info on ASW equipment. Is the CDC expected to carry all three: torpedoes, hull-mounted, and towed sonar?
So, as with anything with CDC, the requirements set out are varied. Obviously, as you know, we are in a state of flux when it comes to CDC; the requirements are not set, and they are not firm. So things can very easily shift; I want that disclaimer out there.
As for what we know? CDC will have an ASW suite in some capacity; that is confirmed as desired. I have heard hull-mounted sonars and towed arrays mentioned as being included in some capacity; the big caveat there is whether the towed array is integrated into the hull, or whether the idea is to leverage a containerized array like COBRA, pushing the array as a non-permanent capability.
That is left more open. I have not heard anything—not a single credible word—on torpedoes as a requirement. That is left open, and I would not fully expect to see them here; platforms like CDC can be mixed regarding whether things like torpedoes are included.
I have not heard it as a requirement or a major desire. I suspect that, like most of the combat suite, it will be left very open in the RFI to allow designers freedom to propose solutions; you never want an RFI to be too constraining, in my humble opinion.
Q18. What is your take on the MEKO A-100 offer from the CEO of TKMS?
I think the MEKO family is a well-proven, very beautiful design that continues to remain a modern favourite for many. The funny thing is, the A-200 also fits into the CDC requirements as they currently exist and wouldn't be out of the question compared to other designs.
On that note, as we have discussed extensively, the requirements for CDC and what is expected will do a lot. TKMS is coming in fairly late, with a design that pushes heavily against any sort of deep Arctic commitment (not necessarily the worst thing) and with no apparent discussions regarding partners.
In a scenario where the design contract is separated from the builder, where the Canadian-designed requirement isn't as stringent, and where we don't see as heavy a focus on an Arctic commitment, then maybe there is room for it to slot in. It doesn't quite meet the range and endurance requirements we're looking at; but compared to others like Pohjanmaa, a famous foreign design in discussions, it does better on paper.
That's with the caveat that paper is paper, and you shouldn't treat it like gospel. MEKO does have many fans; I have met several who love the design, but its possibility here, to me, is on the lower end when all the shipyards that could build CDC have other plans. The opening is Irving, and they have other plans I can't talk about.
So I think it's interesting—low chances, but interesting; and I welcome lots of competition. Competition makes things fun for me.
Q19. Any insights related to the Globe & Mail article regarding Saab intensifying its pitch to Canada? What's your objective take/assessment on Saab offerings?
I will have my own piece on my time there, because I was on the same trip, got to see the factory, and got to spend a long time with Saab officials. Mine will go a bit more into the industrial side, and I am being a bit careful because I have some things I can't say yet.
Overall, though, ahead of my own post, I can objectively say that Saab was very accommodating with questions. They are very much aware of several key issues I had and answered to the best of their ability; I saw multiple presentations related to what a Canadian industrial presence could look like, along with timelines and breakdowns of what that entailed.
Saab, I will say, was very honest with me, and they were very much willing to take criticism and answer my questions. I have over six hours of recordings, about a dozen files, and well over 150 slides to go through, lol; they didn't leave me empty-handed by any means.
I am very excited to share what I saw, especially as one of the only Canadians to see Linköping and its facilities in full. It was a wonderful experience, one that I plan to capture; I'm just waiting on the final touches and making sure I don't get in trouble, lol.
Q20. With MCAV expanding and protection increasing, is DND moving toward a common vehicle family across MCAV and HDFM to simplify logistics and production?
I don't see any indication that we're moving there at this time. The full direction is still toward acquiring a dedicated Main Battle Tank; that is still the plan and what we're working towards. I will say, as I said before, that the conceptual changes to MCAV do close that gap considerably.
A STANAG VI, multi-role platform with direct-fire variants listed outright is a fairly beefy medium tank option that does overlap into HDFM on paper. A medium tank will never be an MBT; it will never have the same capabilities, growth room, or roles, even if there is overlap at the high-low end.
That's why we're still maintaining the need for a proper tank, because we don't envision a medium tank as being a functional replacement—even if there are Canadian-specific arguments on sustainment, doctrine, our ability to support the lift of an MBT across the Atlantic, and cost that do push us more towards a common, lighter platform instead of a 70-tonne MBT.
You've got to support that tank fleet, move it in wartime with our limited lift capacity (because tanks for us are an inherently expeditionary, European-focused capability), and support it across the ocean. Is that the best use of funds? Is there room for a direct-fire platform like the CV90120 that does 80% of what an MBT can do, operates on a common supply chain with MCAV, can be bought in greater numbers, and isn't as straining on us from a logistical/sustainment angle?
Those are legitimate arguments, and they're part of the conversation. If we do decide on that route, the current expectations and shift we are seeing would support that. Is that leading the way? Maybe. I can't say, but I do note it.
Q21. Pending RCN requirements, what do you think of an ideal CDC weapons load: 57mm main gun, 16 VLS, 4-8 NSMs, 1 Mk 49 RAM, 1-2 25mm RMWS, torpedoes, UAVs, and AUVs?
Remove the torpedoes; I don't think those are a hard requirement needed here. 30mm over 25mm to maintain commonality with the River-class and future MCAV fleet (because multi-branch alignment is still important and valuable!), and you basically get the idea.
I would say, depending on the size and how many we want, if we want to maximize quantity, eight cells on a smaller, bulkier platform is acceptable for the role we want. So 8–16 Mk 41—it doesn't need to be Strike-length in my books, but that is preferred for future-proofing. 4–8 NSMs work, 1–2 30mm, and one Mk 49; that's my minimum for a combatant.
Growth space for payloads and autonomous systems is also important, and that will be baked into the requirements, as CDC is as much an autonomous mothership as it is a combatant; lots of people forget that desire.
But yeah, that is broadly the picture; you got it mostly right.
Q22. Any news on the ATGM project?
It's the same since our last update.
Q23. Why are people so interested in LUV in your opinion?
I think it's a simple enough project for most to understand, with vehicles that most people have a familiarity with, which will make up a very significant part of our future vehicle fleet. Most people, I hope, have worked on a Silverado before; many people are familiar with the Super Duty as a platform.
There is also, obviously, a lot of Roshel hype pushing people forward. A successful, highly exported, often-discussed platform having an opportunity here—and the drama behind it—is very enticing for people. There is a lot of hype around the Senator that I feel draws people into its future.
Add in the messaging around the automotive sector—which many people, especially in Southern Ontario, have a stake in—the current trade situation, and many people's personal connections to the Milverado and G-Wagon, and LUV becomes a surprisingly personal project, even if I don't think many would say it or even notice they have personal feelings heavily involved.
You don't always get that with projects like drones or MCAV; even DAME, which is very similar in concept, doesn't get that love. Projects that people understand and can relate to on an interpersonal level are exceedingly rare; LUV, for all it is, is one of those.
Q24. CDC will have 8-16 VLS cells; could a missile load include SM-2s for area defence in addition to ESSMs, or would CDC likely not have the supporting electronics?
That depends entirely on the sensor suite and what sort of capabilities the RCN demands. I have heard the SM-2 cited, funnily enough, as likely out of scope—as that sort of upper limit where we cross into the unlikely. CDC is looking for a platform that can provide self-defence and potential local air defence, which something like the ESSM fits.
Something like Vigilance with STIR and NS100 isn't going to be able to use the SM-2 effectively. It's not impossible, especially with modern variants like the SM-2 Block IIIC/CU, but the matchup is miscast; it also isn't in the scope of what we expect from CDC right now.
I stress "right now" because we don't know exact details on what, say, the air defence capability will look like or what it leans toward until we have the RFI. For now? People see ESSM as the primary air defence munition for CDC, and that's where many top out.
Q25. With Tyrfing getting Mk 41 VLS capability, will the RCN consider them for the RCD?
Maybe. Who knows? Tyrfing is a decade away at a minimum; it's an early concept. Who knows what we'll want a decade from now, or where Tyrfing will be.
There is definitely interest on the submarine side, because Tyrfing would be an absolutely terrifying capability for a platform like the 212CD; but that's with the caveat that Tyrfing is so far out that it isn't really a thought to anyone right now.
Q26. What's a bigger gong show: CHER or literally anything else?
CHER is, yeah... we don't really talk about it, but yeah, you definitely get to claim that, Chief. Hopefully you get something eventually, and we don't see things delayed another year or five; I can understand your struggle.
Q27. Has the RCN purchased any AUV from Cellula Robotics or been trialing any? This seems like a perfect solution to a problem. Thanks.
Cellula maintains a healthy relationship with DRDC, where Cellula has been a partner in an experimental role in the Arctic to test the concept of XLUUV operations in the North; that relationship is actively producing results.
That is ahead of things like the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System project and other UUV initiatives. The Navy (as you will hear tomorrow) has plans to introduce larger UUVs going into the 2030s; Cellula is very well positioned to fulfill that demand!
So RCN? No, but they're actively in the ecosystem and helping build the concept of operations for us.
Q28. Aside from MSPO, what major conferences/events are on your radar in Canada and internationally?
DEFSEC Atlantic has grown to be the undisputed number two event; with a potentially heavy Navy presence going in (subs, CDC, FASST-V), a new Defence Policy under discussion, and an upcoming budget, I expect it to be a major showing this year.
Same for Best Defence, another underrated conference where I expect we'll see a lot of heavy participation. It tends to be quieter than CANSEC and DEFSEC, but it is still attended by most of the big players.
The NATO Association has a large event planned for the end of November that I will be attending; so if any of y'all want to link up, let me know, because TOO MANY OF Y'ALL MESSAGED ME THE DAY BEFORE CANSEC—and while I love you all, I do appreciate some time to plan and schedule.
AUSA is the big international one I'm watching in the fall/winter; that is obviously among the most important of the year. Euronaval could be interesting from the Canadian side, depending on what's out by then. IDEX is okay—good to keep an eye on, but rarely does it have much consequence from the Canadian side, mostly just a few industry developments of note.
Those are my picks.
Q29. I've seen some references to a future dedicated light cav platform when MCAV/HDFM are taken care of; do you have any eyes on that?
There are a few things that could fit that. If you mean on the LAV front? We do have ACV-W in the works; that is the future LAV fleet procurement. ACV-W is still unfunded, though, and for now the numbers remain flexible, especially considering that ACV-W will not be a one-time procurement, but an instrument for sustained procurement over a decade-plus.
That won't come after; that is likely coming in the next year or so, where we'll see the first contracts. 140 ACV-W were wanted in the initial batch from the Army. The current expectation financially is set at roughly $62–86 billion, depending heavily on how many we end up procuring. The lowest number given is 2,300, while the Army would prefer 3,908 to meet NATO commitments.
That is, of course, a general, early figure stretched over a continuous procurement cycle. ACV-W also isn't technically a replacement; instead, it is the CAF's desire for a continuous sustainment model for the LAV fleet through incremental purchases, agile development cycles, and incremental modernizations. How that looks in practice (be that yearly batch orders or such) is yet to be determined.
The primary focus areas of ACV-W are lethality, survivability, mobility, and C5ISR. It's best to understand that these are broad requirements; again, ACV-W is an incremental, agile initiative. These categories are built as general focus areas that we work on and develop over time: things like hybrid drivetrains, mobile camouflage systems, active protection systems, etc.
ACV-W will, however, likely be equipped with a 30mm main gun, supplemented by the addition of an ATGM or loitering munition system. It will also likely feature both soft- and hard-kill C-UAS capabilities, a bespoke battery system, and a renewed focus on digital and AI integration.
These are all in the ACV-W scope, but all will arrive at different times and all will be developed over time; the systems on Batch I and the systems on Batch V, even if they share heritage, will likely be far different from each other.
If you mean the Reserve APC concept? I will quote what I said a few weeks ago: it exists. We've been tracking it for a year now. What exactly an ARes APC looks like depends a lot on what you believe the ARes needs to do, and what your opinion on proper protection is.
There is very much a divide on this sort of topic. What we need, in my opinion, is a cheap, multirole platform that offers decent protection against potential adversarial actions, is affordable enough to be acquired en masse, is flexible in the tasks it can perform, and is simple to maintain at reserve units across the country. That means a large supply chain; it means a platform that could be worked on domestically, and one where transferable skills are prioritized.
That aligns with a platform like the Senator, which is by far the most common answer you will see, or a similar commercial-based chassis: something that is flexible, can fit a dozen different roles, and can be rapidly reconfigured, with a large existing supply chain, a wide talent pool, and domestic availability.
That is the best option we have on the table, supplemented by platforms like DAME and likely some future LAVs thrown in; it provides a credible platform that could do just about everything we need.
Those are the two projects that I believe you're thinking of, or at least heard about. If it is something else, it's one of the really far-out concepts that exist in name only.
Q30. Does the RCN have plans to add SeaSpider to the River class and possibly CDC?
Sea Spider used to be talked about in plans, but it isn't really anymore; Sea Spider is still seen as an experimental concept.
Obviously, it is a partially Canadian capability through Magellan's work, and the 212CD puts a major focus on it as a countermeasure, so I suspect we will see it.
However, for now, it's in the "wait-and-see what happens" category of things when it comes to surface combatants. It won't be on Batch I of the River class, and Batch II is for later discussions; I won't repeat the same line on CDC.
Q31. Will the GBAD winner be announced this year?
The winner of the Uplift UOR to supply a SHORAD battery to Latvia is expected to be announced by the end of November. When? I don't know exactly.
Army Week, as always, is a good time to be looking for something, especially as GBAD is one of the "big four"; but the end of November is the timeline to watch.
Q32. Is there any chance we’ll get a Roshel Senator for the LUV platform?
I think they have a fantastic chance. I think both they and GM have a great chance to win; maybe even at the same time.
Q33. What do you mean by Army Week? Like the Army Run?
The Army Run is a part of Army Week. Think of Army Week as the Army's big annual reset and announcement week that happens every September. It’s where we get things like the launch of major reforms and announcements, and this year, where we cement the structural changes set out in CAMO.
At the same time, it’s a big public relations week that wraps up with Military Family Recognition Day and the Army Run; so it's a mix of behind-the-scenes reforms and a community celebration.
This year, obviously, transition is the big thing going into it. The Army Warfighting Concept will also be released publicly; it's quite good!
Q34. With the updates to the MCAV, will the Boxer tracked be included in the choices? If so, will it be with the new Leopard 3 or Leo 2A8 for HDFM?
Maybe. It's too early to say, but Rheinmetall itself is putting all its effort into Lynx, so I don't expect it will be.
The big push at this stage will be for Lynx to be the overall German lead platform here, and it has a good shot already as is; there is no need for them, at least, to support anything else in there.
I would look to Italy here, as that is likely to be similar to the package we get offered—not as extensive, mind you, as Italy has gone all-in on Lynx and Panther to a higher extent than we plan, but expect a similar package in principle.
Q35. What are the odds of the first batch of CDC being built in say South Korea for speed with the rest in Canada when we have capacity?
As I said before, highly, highly unlikely. That goes against the spirit of the NSS, will have the major yards pretty pissed, and goes against the Navy’s current big desire for a Canadian-from-the-core platform.
Q36. Which vehicle do you think will be chosen for MCAV? I hope either the lynx or cv90.
I think it'll be a very tough competition, but at this stage I am not ready to say who is likely. Requirements are in flux, and we only have one RFI. I don't think anyone has an advantage at this stage.
Q23, you nailed it! You did a great job of explaining it without condescending us. Thanks for a thoughtful answer.