Happy Friday!
It's a smaller week this week, as expexted by last weeks absolute SCALE of a Q&A. This Week it seems that project updates is what you guys want, and I can respect that lol. I think we've been lacking in project posts as DDI, a bunch of RFI/RFP, and auch have dominated a lot of our discussions together.
I won't keep you all long today. Let's jump into things!
Q1. You’ve had a lot of engagement with Saab regarding their pitch for Gripen. Have you thought about a similar approach to Lockheed Martin? It seems only fair.
I have maintained a very open relationship with Lockheed. I imagine that we maintain a good relationship; they have never not been open and happy to engage with me, and I have had lots of conversations across HIMARS, Naval Systems, and the F-35.
If Lockheed wanted to invite me to their facilities, they can. I don’t ask companies for tours or exclusive access; I go where I am invited. If they threw it out, then absolutely I would go. I’ve been in the F-35 simulator, talked to pilots, and have heard of all the cool plans they have to invest into the DIB, some of which we’ve talked about.
I am a very easy person to reach; I tell people that all the time. If the opportunity presents? I would love to take the trip over and see the F-35 process up close.
Q2. Can’t wait for more interviews (since you mentioned it 3 weeks ago), as I really enjoyed the interview with Topshee. Also, who would be your dream interviewee?
You’ll see. I would get David McGuinty in a locked room and ask him about the most random bullshit possible; like, no one has ever talked to him about generators, or MCAV, or CHER, or just random stuff. I would do that.
Q3. Just out of curiosity re: transport aircraft. Any chance Canada looks at the Japanese C2 vs the A400? Similar payload, but maybe a bit cheaper with longer range.
The A400 is a real possibility. The C2 is a really cool aircraft in my books, but less, much less so. It’s limited in scale, which makes it expensive.
It’s had a history of manufacturing defects and teething issues that has gotten better, to its credit, but it still has a bit of a rep. It would be overtly unique to our ecosystem, without a wide supply chain that something like the A400 could use.
It wouldn’t benefit from a wider, in-depth NATO ecosystem, wouldn’t be able to benefit from multinational training initiatives; it would again be a much more expensive platform overall for us.
It isn’t an awful aircraft; no one is gonna argue the A400 is perfect. It’s just that the C2 is coming at this with a capability-focused argument that isn’t really there, with none of the supply-chain, training, ecosystem, or investment benefits of the A400.
Q4. Which nTACS platform is being considered the most to replace the Griffons?
“Most” is a heavy question. I don’t think there is any clear favourite, as I have said before. nTACS has been redrawn, descoped, requirements added and dropped, etc., more than almost any other project in the last year. What do they want? I can’t fully say anymore.
There are still talks of requirement changes, rescoping, and expansions to the project that make it very volatile to pinpoint. We know we want a dedicated attack; we know we want a medium-class rotary platform. Beyond that? It’s very open, and I ain’t gonna be guessing now and throwing out who might have an advantage; because believe me, everyone has favourites and advocates as such.
Airbus has a natural early advantage if Bell can’t sell a tiltrotor, which is still viewed very skeptically by folks. What work would Bell do for the MV-75 domestically? We don’t know. That advantage isn’t permanent nor bound. Others can come in as well and offer a lot, and still secure things. Leonardo has an excellent position to be in too, even if lacking the scale of facilities and presence that Airbus currently enjoys here.
No one, I think, has a set advantage, and I stick by that at this time. It’s far too early to say, and nTACS requirements are so over the place at times that it’s hard to pin down until we get an RFI. Sometimes you know what a project wants enough beforehand; this ain’t one of them.
Q5. A recent Russian tank attack showed APS is effective against FPV drones until the systems ran dry. Is APS magazine depth part of the HDFM/MCAV program criteria?
As of now, it is not that I have seen. Information regarding APS and CUAS solutions are asked for, but nothing so specific at this stage. That isn’t strange, mind you.
We have a single RFI out, and RFIs are principally about engagement with industry to better refine requirements. You aren’t always gonna see a lot of deep depth like that in an RFI. I have not seen it either talking to people in recent concepts, but that doesn’t mean stuff like that won’t be around. I don’t imagine it myself; but never say never.
Q6. Any chance of funding to establish production of the Mk 80 family of bombs in-country, including components for the smart/guided versions?
Mk. 80 specifically? Unlikely; same with the JDAM kits themselves. We’re unlikely to see either unless we put significant capital and effort into securing production. Our allies are investing billions into securing manufacturing. Our allies benefit from being involved—primarily Europe—in better ecosystems that benefit from multinational instruments, integrated supply chains, and a much more accessible market.
Australia created the Australian Missile Corporation to handle attracting and managing manufacturing; they invested $10s of billions in funding and incentives to manufacturers, provided a base into the wider Pacific market, and most of all, have a collective desire to get it done. We have taken none of those steps, sit next to the largest manufacturer on earth, and are relying primarily on project offsets to support munition investment.
Funding helps, but it’s only one avenue of getting even stuff like that. There has to be demand; there has to be an environment, both legal and regulatory, to support it. Funding helps, but it isn’t always the biggest hurdle to make. We don’t have a munitions strategy; we don’t have a model for attracting munition investment, and it doesn’t seem to be at the top of the priority list.
A JDAM-like kit would be the exact low-cost, simple, precision-guided munition capacity I would look at in the initial. It is part of the Holy Munition list for a reason, but it won’t be easy and requires a proper, dedicated strategy and an acceptance of limits to really push through. You ain’t getting Patriot, and now likely ain’t getting anything HIMARS-related. Those pass us as European capacity gets domesticated more and more. So yeah, funding helps, but it is only one part of the issue.
Q7. For satellites, is there a possibility of optical imaging recon satellites (e.g., KH-11), or will it just be SAR ones like RADARSAT?
Some form of electro-optical earth imaging satellites aren’t officially in the books. Space-based ISR right now is focused on DESSP, which will be SAR. Other payloads are being discussed as part of broader discussions on DESSP, but electro-optical payloads have never come up to me.
That isn’t to rule it out in the future. The CAF’s Space Enterprise is rapidly expanding, and the list of capabilities and projects for everyone is only getting bigger. We’ve recently added an SB-MTI constellation to the docket as an example, which you can read about here.
I don’t see it. We have something really good in the DESSP plans, and that is very much the focus right now, along with maintaining RADARSAT. That’s where I feel a lot of effort will continue to go for the next decade at least.
Q8. With the RCAF getting what could be described as the “RCAF Regiment”, do you ever see the RCN getting Naval Infantry or Marines? Especially if we get AMBs?
No. There is no desire on the navy’s end. Zero. They have no desire to get into the ground game; and any sort of effort to support an amphibious capability will either come from policy or through the Army, who also have zero desire.
Notice, when AMB is discussed, the idea of Amphibious Assault is very much avoided, and only given the ‘if we are asked, we would find a way’ treatment. AMB is treated more like a Ro/Ro supplement by many than a proper amphibious assault ship.
We ain’t doing contested landings. No one expects us to; and so unless government policy changes, and the Feds lay it out as a desire, you won’t see anyone pushing it. No one wants it; no one cares for it.
Q9. With all of these procurement projects, any chance of a consolidated list of projects and how many of what they’re hoping to procure?
You mean like a list of defence capabilities? One that outlines the major projects in the works, their mandate, and timelines? Like some sort of basic blueprint to projects? Gee, that would be something... I’ve debated making my own, but never put in a bunch of effort.
The DCB sucks; it’s awful. It’s almost useless in the current, fast-paced environment. Case in point: the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project—you know, largest procurement in history and shit—NEVER appeared once, and still doesn’t, on the DCB. I should make one; I really should, just not here. It needs dedicated space, but it’s also A LOT of work. Maybe I could partner with someone...
Q10. With up to 20 CDCs being asked for, any chance they split them, using a common hull, into two more specialized variants?
I see no reason for variants on CDC. I don’t know what variants you could ask for at this stage. It isn’t a strike platform, nor dedicated air defence. It will already be built from the onset as an Autonomous Mothership, and will have a fairly decent sensor suite from what we know. It isn’t meant to be a high-end ASW platform; and once we start trying to make it a high-end platform, you won’t see twenty of them.
The high-end numbers of CDC dictate a decent, affordable vessel that can be constructed at scale. That isn’t a high-end vessel. We need platforms that are good enough, available in numbers to support rapid response across our coastal approaches.
We have high-end vessels in the River-class. What we need is mass; lots of it. Mass that can protect itself, contribute to the maritime picture, and if needed, defend our Continental waters from adversaries, both from traditional threats and asymmetric targeting and grey-zone tactics.
I don’t know what two variants look like, or what it achieves in a platform like this. If someone has arguments, I’ll happily hear them.
Q11. Will Roshel move most of their manufacturing to the US if they don’t get chosen for the LUV project?
I don’t think I have a right to fully speak to that; but certainly, if the company doesn’t get any love here, it’s hard to see why they would prioritize Brampton over their American or European facilities.
That isn’t pulling out, as you suggest. It’s deprioritizing and shifting investment away from Brampton and to other facilities. If they lose LUV and DAME, the options for them here become very limited. That’s just how this stuff works.
Q12. Do you know when the new self-propelled artillery will be chosen?
Well, I can’t say exactly when a contract will be signed; that’s always fluctuating. We do know the general timelines, but as always, those can change. Contract award is looking around 2028/2029, IOC is set for 2031-ish, and FOC out to 2037.
Those are the general timelines as I know them. That can shift with Warfighting Concept and Defence Policy. IFM is considered a priority project, obviously. I don’t see an award next year, but 2028 looks viable if we want it. I would say around then.
Q13. Is there any update on the work the CAF and Bombardier are doing to enable A2A refuelling for the 6500/GlobalEye?
It’s Bombardier leading here, and I’m afraid not. I have not heard anything new in the last few weeks—not from them, not in Sweden—other than what we know, in that it’s being explored and a concept worked on.
Q14. Has Airbus upped the pressure to try and supply more for nTACS? Thinking of Cyclone replacement as well... I assume things are getting re-evaluated these days. Well, I haven’t seen it in the lobbying, and they haven’t told me otherwise. Keep in mind there’s no requirement to replace the Cyclone, nor are many gonna be focusing on that when nTACS is active.
People are obviously gonna take note of things, and we’re gonna engage industry on solutions if we really look at a new Maritime Helicopter. But I don’t know anyone save Lockorsky pushing it; and that’s because they’re losing a fuckton of money off it. I would be shocked, honestly, if Airbus was focusing on that versus their current general pitch of trying to be Canada’s Helicopter Supplier of Choice. That isn’t arguing for things to die, nor new projects, though.
Arguing you are prepared to supply requirements across the spectrum is different from advocating against existing products.
Q15. Is the CDC getting scope-crept? Maybe keep it cheaper with NS50, 57mm, 1 Mk38, 4-8 NSM, 1SD + 1Tac Mk-41, with a 4 ISO20 abreast CUBE deck for Torps or Mk-70?
I mean, the cost difference of Tactical and Strike-length MK.41 isn’t really changing much, just saying... The real difference here is the radar, which, no offence, but with NS50, the use of VLS becomes limited enough that there is debate there. Honestly, you can argue that CDC is becoming too much for itself; people in the Navy argue that.
Look above at how we described CDC: affordable mass that can contribute to our All-Domain Awareness, with the capabilities needed to defend itself and enforce sovereignty. There is a trilateral axis there between capability, cost, and mass that needs to be balanced out. That is where a lot of debate is. What tasks do we need CDC to perform? What does the Continental Defence role entail, not just now, but looking into the future? What are the minimum capabilities needed?
People are gonna have different concepts of what that looks like, and the primary threats CDC is meant to counter. Personally, I think the current iteration is the best we can get it, and I have said some losses—like, say, 8 cells instead of 16—might suck, but could still meet the tasks asked out of CDC. I don’t think we should be aiming higher than what we have now, nor do I think we will. If anything, I expect expectations to be tempered before we expand scope these days.
Q16. $5 billion committed to CDC. CAN defense spending (5% GDP) is a planned driver of economic development and EU partnership. Don’t be surprised by an expedited project.
I wouldn’t be committed to any numbers on CDC. I also think we have to have some self-tempering. There are a lot of wonderful things going on, and a lot of money to be spent. That doesn’t mean we are in a free-spend, everything-moves-forward environment. I can’t comment on things in depth for protection reasons; but there are lots of projects that ain’t getting the budgets they want, are being asked to rescope and look cheaper, or are being scaled back.
There are lots of debates on if what we plan for will be enough, and if we can afford right now to expand on scale. Projects also ain’t money. It’s people we don’t have, staff that doesn’t exist. It’s reviews that are ongoing, fights over allocations. It’s debates over priorities and who gets that share of funding first. We don’t have the people to staff projects.
We have large infrastructure bottlenecks that restrict our ability to deliver projects. Not everything will be in the upcoming Defence Policy; people have been told that. Not everything will be funded; again, people have been told that. While we can enjoy things and hope, we also shouldn’t forget that our capacity is not infinite, and there will be winners and losers here.
Q17. With growing EU partnership and USA political turbulence, it’s likely we’ll see more EU weapon and sensor systems in local and foreign CDC designs?
I mean, sure. A Corvette is much more competitive for European suppliers who have product lines that align well to smaller combatants. Thales, Saab, and Hensoldt all have very competitive options when it comes to sensors.
Munitions will likely remain primarily American to align with the River-class. We’ll stick with MK.41, RIM-116 if we have a CIWS, and likely stay with the MK.38 to align the fleet. The Navy also wants to minimize munitions across the fleet, so I expect 100% CDC will stick inside the ESSM ecosystem versus other potential options. All of this would be true, though, tensions or not. This isn’t politically driven in itself.
Q18. Will the LUV variants be all announced at the same time, or will the armored variant be added on later?
Oh, you’ll see variants added later. I wouldn’t worry about armoured versus unarmoured, but I can say there is already planning and discussions of new uses for LUV once we have a supplier downselected, and some of them are really, really cool. Some you would be shocked about, but sadly I am bound to secrecy there. Hopefully, I will get to talk about some of them soon.
Q19. Any update on what the future of the Reserves looks like? Or are we waiting on the new Defence Policy at this point?
There’s a lot coming, and a lot of soul-searching to be had among the Army still. We are just in the midst of reorganizing. We have the Army Warfighting Concept coming; we have a new Defence Policy, and the general truth is that the Reserves have been mostly excluded from a lot of the reform discussions up until recently.
That is sad; it isn’t right, but that is what happened. The Reserves were treated as secondary, to be figured out later. That “later” is now coming up, though, and that debate is ongoing. What that future looks like? I can’t say. I don’t know what path is forward. I don’t think I’ll be the one to tell you, nor should I.
That comes from Army Leadership deciding what they want. Do we want a strong, ready reserve ready to back us up in conflict? Or a mobilization instrument that supports DOMOPS? I can’t say I know which one comes out on top. I don’t think anyone can.
Q20. Idea when DAME will be awarded?
They want it before the end of the year, which seems likely if nothing snags the process.
Q21. When do you think LUV COTS and LUV MOTS will be awarded?
The current expectation and goal is to have a contract signed by the end of the fall. That’s also looking pretty good right now, all things considered.
Q22. Do you know who will be the GBAD winner?
Yes. No. Maybe. I ain’t saying; I don’t say winners like that. If I ever say I expect someone, or say it feels someone has a big advantage, that is me speculating. I won’t say if someone has outright been selected. That isn’t my announcement to make. That isn’t my right; I don’t have any right to take that from people.
Q23. Korean AFVs being considered for MCAV or HDFM? Could be a consolation prize for them after CPSP.
Yeah, they’re in the discussion, and I know there is interest on the Korean side of things. “Consolation prize” isn’t a term I like to use. Throughout CPSP, and after, the idea of pleasing the winner with other defence contracts never came up to me. There was never this idea of balancing contracts so every partner gets a share, and I haven’t seen that still. I don’t want to throw such ideas out there without a lot of evidence it’s happening or being discussed. Redback and the K2 remain competitive without needing to chalk things up to favours and balancing.
Q24. Is there a chance that we’ll be getting the Skyranger GBAD system or the LOKKE system? Or are we going for straight missiles?
We’re still open to gun-based solutions, absolutely. While there is definitely a desire for missile effectors, that doesn’t negate the need for cheaper, more available gun-based systems. Enduring Phase II is likely to include both! Similarly, the National CUAS Array and Continental IAMD discussions all include the discussion on kinetic solutions that could include systems like Sgt Stout, Lokke, and Skyranger.
They might not get the love, but they are 1000% still active parts of the conversations, and we will likely see gun-based systems procured as part of our IAMD plans.
Q25. Noticed a Coast Guard Bell 429 is embarked on HMCS Robert Hampton Gray for NANOOK 2026. Could the RCAF procure a similar light helicopter?
Funny enough, I also hyped this up to CRCN Charlebois when I talked to him because, as you all know, I am a fan of Light Helicopters. I love little guys. I think there is a lot of utility in smaller helicopters like the 429 and 145M, especially for a platform like the AOPS.
Luckily, I don’t think this is the last we see of this; in fact, I think this is a prime example of what common collaboration between the Navy and CCG can look like, and I would be shocked if we didn’t see this sort of deployment become more commonplace.
These are helicopters with a lot of utility for platforms like the AOPS, that can provide the AOPS with a good, modular platform for things like MEDEVAC, SAR, ISR, light-lift capacity, etc.
