Happy Saturday!
It's a LUV-ly night for a Q&A isn't it? We're back on the LUV hype as we move closer to an award for Phase II, can't say im surprised. As we have established, I think everyone loves LUV these days.
Also, a CCG project question! We don't get those enough honestly. Now that the CCG is part of the Defence teams, I do wanna start doing more on them beyond basic coverage, something real and opinionated. If anyone has any ideas, would love to hear.
We also, as usual got some fighter questions.
Q1. Any fighter jet update or is it still in the pit of despair that it currently is in? At this point I wish we would go and order them both like the rumours say.
It exists, and that is about the point we’re at right now. The review is legitimately ongoing. They ain’t like, hiding results or anything. There is still discussion, and consultations are happening. There is still engagement on the topic from the federal government.
Most of the companies expected something after the budget last year. That is true. Evidently, that never came. The federal government decided that they needed more time to come to a proper decision, to engage more, and to figure out what the review would actually look like.
A thing to remember, what the review produces will not be a contract, and won’t be a line of “We get x amount of this and x amount of that” that some people seem to be expecting. It will provide recommendations to the government on what to do, and whatever they decide to do with that recommendation is up to the Prime Minister.
At this stage, I wouldn’t take any number or any split rumour put out there as serious. Any previous numbers were just flat-out wrong when reported, and I will say that with confidence. As I know it, no numbers have ever been agreed upon at an official level.
I have a feeling, a feeling, that the review will be done shortly. That isn’t a rumour, that’s a personal call. I don’t think we have much longer to wait.
Q2. Looking at IFM and how there is an idea of mounted 81 mm mortars, would this be dependent on LUV or a new chassis (which we know you would love)?
That is a bit more open. The official word has always been that the 81 would be mounted on ‘Light Tactical Vehicles’. The often-used interpretation has been that they would be mounted on whatever comes out of LFE.
The desire to have a mortar on the LUV chassis though does exist. It is out there, and I wouldn’t be shocked in the slightest to see both eventually get mortar systems, especially as we relegated 120mm primarily to the LAV.
There is a conscious desire to implement more indirect fire capability across the fleet, down to and including the light infantry. That positions LFE well as the primary chassis to see the 81 integrated onto, but I still wouldn’t rule out seeing a LUV-based mortar system in the future.
GM could do it if they really wanted, and Roshel already showed off the concept on a Senator. It’s entirely possible to see it. If you’re curious if it would be a new chassis? No. No need for that. Zero need for anything new when we have platforms that fit.
Q3. I recall there being a government mandate a few years ago to get EVs for the CAF for many day-to-day vehicles. Is that still in effect, and how is it going?
It’s still ongoing, though you’ll hear about hybridization more than straight EV if you talk around. There is still very much a mandate for hybrid and encased battery-electric systems as we move towards net-zero by 2050. Almost any future platform, be that MCAV, ACV-W, etc., is investigating hybrid systems.
MCAV doesn’t list it outright in the RFI, but there is a desire to investigate hybrid systems. All the documentation I’ve seen on ACV-W lists both hybrid drivetrains and lithium-ion batteries as desires. We’ve had one IDEaS challenge related to hydrogen storage for vehicles, and one specific study being done regarding the LAV.
Commercial platforms are also increasingly looking at electric and hybrid solutions when viable, even if it doesn’t get publicized very much. MINERVA and DDI are also interested in alternative power like lithium-ion systems, hydrogen, etc.
So yeah, we are absolutely looking at electrification. When it comes to now? We are trying to move towards experimenting with hybrid and proper EV when viable. When it comes to future platforms? It is both investigative and exploratory in nature, but we are very much interested in hybrid systems, and want the modularity and open architecture to support future electrification built into platforms.
Net-zero by 2050 is still a thing. That hasn’t gone away, and so that’s the big goal we’re all working to.
Q4. If more JSS are ordered, will Seaspan have to wait to finish the Polar Icebreaker first? Do we know if the Multipurpose Icebreakers must be built sequentially?
Polar wouldn’t be the issue here. The issues here would primarily be related to slotting it in alongside the MPI schedule, and making sure everything keeps to the timeline. We could fit another JSS if we really wanted, but it would be done as a consequence of the MPI.
We have some tight timelines running on the icebreakers. We need them desperately, and the MPI especially are the future backbone of the CCG. They are critically needed as soon as possible.
Adding on anything, JSS or CDC, means slotting them in with the current MPI. How they do that? That’s for Seaspan, CCG, and the federal government to come to an agreement on when it comes to build slots and delivery schedules.
Seaspan, for CDC, has discussed utilizing smaller yards to do module construction and such to both speed up delivery and make sure they can stretch out capacity in Vancouver more efficiently. For another JSS? I don’t know what they would do. That would be for them to conceptualize.
As for the MPI build? To my understanding, they will be built sequentially, but overlapping as with many other cases. There will be multiple ships being worked on through various stages to ensure consistent delivery of new vessels. That’s the standard these days.
That’s how I know it at least.
Q5. Isn’t force protection a secondary role for our MP friends? Are they unable to perform that and that’s why SecFo is being stood up?
I wouldn’t even call force protection secondary. It is a major task that our MP have been expected to handle, and this shift isn’t a knock on the MP. It isn’t that they can’t, it’s that it’s better to maintain a dedicated organization over trying to make the MP into something they are not.
We already have a shortage of MP, and their primary role will always remain policing. That already means we’re going in with a force that is already stretched and has another major duty to consider.
What the RCAF wants is something full-time, solely under their authority, who can be trained and properly equipped to handle the security requirements expected of modern platforms. The RCAF wants a force that is theirs. They want a force that puts security at the front, and can be equipped specifically to the needs of protecting an airbase and critical RCAF infrastructure, including things like proper CUAS training, CBRN training, etc.
Putting that on the MP is unrealistic. We’re talking about hundreds of personnel being needed to staff SecFor. That’s personnel that we don’t have, for a force that is already stretched, and isn’t set up (nor should we expect them to be) for the tasks the RCAF wants.
We’re talking round-the-clock, 24/7 needs for dedicated, permanent security. It’s the model our allies follow also, separate policing and security tasks. The RAF has the RAF Regiment for airfield defence and force protection, and the RAF Police for proper policing. The French have the Fusiliers Commandos de l’Air, the Germans have the Objektschutzregiment “Friesland”, and the RAAF have Airfield Defence Guards.
Now, SecFor is closely modeled on and working with the USAF Security Forces to build up that ecosystem, but the split aligns very closely with our other allies’ models, even if in practice we’re taking the American model for ourselves, which does make a lot of sense from an integration standpoint in a binational environment.
We need a dedicated security force because the situation demands it, both from a size/scale perspective and the need for proper RCAF control over its own security of future platforms and infrastructure. That independence is critical.
Q6. Why do you think people have such an obsession with wanting to replace LAVs with Boxers or the Korean N-WAY?
Slight misspell for reference. The name is N-WAV. Obviously no judgement. If I judge anyone for spelling mistakes, you all have permission to clown on my ass.
I really don’t know. I guess it’s that people see certain aspects of both they like? Lots of people love Boxer for the modularity. I think it’s overhyped and the practicality of it is debatable. I also think Boxer is big. Everyone is too big. This is why we can’t enjoy the C-130 anymore.
There is an argument that the SWaP margins on Boxer are highly useful for futureproofing and providing growth room, but that also comes at a significant cost. Boxer is fat. It is heavy, and for Canada that is something we don’t want.
The Canadian operating environment will always favour lighter vehicles over heavier ones. Also, higher SWaP margins only matter if you really plan to utilize them, and whether we could is certainly up for debate.
N-WAV I have no clue why. It seems like a fine vehicle, but I have yet to ever hear someone explain in detail to me why they like it. I think a lot of it comes down to the LAV needing a good refresher. When people look at the platform, they see something that feels underarmed, underpowered, and lacking compared to others.
That isn’t on the LAV itself. That is on the choices we made in terms of what areas to prioritize and what capabilities were required. I think ACV-W, when it comes around and how much the Army gets out of it, will go a long way to close those gaps, because a lot of gaps are self-inflicted and can be fixed.
If you have personal beef with the LAV, that’s on you. I can’t speak to personal issues folks have, but from a capability standpoint? I can’t say why folks are obsessed with it. That’s on them.
Q7. What are these LUV variants you reference on Twitter?
All of them that ain’t in scope. Take your pick. LUV itself doesn’t ask for much. LUV covers Command and Recce (C&R), Utility Vehicle, and Military Police (MP) variants. Outside that scope? It’s open game.
Medical Evacuation vehicles, MRT variants, CUAS vehicles, Mortar vehicles as discussed above, about half a dozen support concepts, and even something like utilizing LUV as a strike platform are all in talks and discussions I have had. I have heard probably a dozen different ideas, and I know folks could come up with two dozen more.
The moment a LUV starts delivering? There will be demand for more. There already is. The planned numbers aren’t enough for the Army we want, not to support two Divisions. That’s true for almost any current vehicle procurement, but with LUV it scales quick and hard.
You’ll see a lot more LUV variants develop quickly after they start delivery. The demand is there, and it will be pushed. In many cases, LUV is going to become a backbone platform, and you should not be surprised to see two or three dozen different variants pop up over the coming years.
Q8. If/when the RCAF operates a 2nd tactical fighter, will they share the same Cold Lake/Bagotville bases or will they look at alternative bases for a 2nd aircraft?
That’s for the RCAF to eventually decide, but don’t hold your breath for another fighter base outside of Cold Lake/Bagotville, and expect there to be a lot of questions and back and forth on whether shared infrastructure is possible and to what extent.
At the end of the day, if a dual fleet is chosen, it will be up to the RCAF to figure out the proper basing framework to support it. Right now that doesn’t exist, because planning is focused on the F-35.
The extent of, say, a Gripen and F-35 operating on the same airbase in terms of infrastructure, basing, etc., is up to further discussions on security requirements, infrastructure needs, and approvals that we as a public can’t speak on, and we likely will never get the full look into.
Whether we look at Gripen outside those two is also up to future discussions by the RCAF that have not happened and are not being actively discussed. If that time ever comes, that will be their choice to make.
Q9. If Roshel wants to buy the plant are they prepared to work with unions?
I don’t think I’m qualified to answer that. The company has shown publicly to be open to discussing and working with UNIFOR and others in the event that the plant is acquired, but I can’t speak beyond that.
That is a question for them, not me.
Q10. Which DAME platform is being looked at more favorably right now?
I can’t say I have heard of what platform is being selexted, nor would I say if I did. DAME is a bit of a mess right now, with priorities shifting a bit and such. I can’t say what the big prioirities really are right now. There is a lot going on that sadly I can't speak on. They know what platform they want, yes, but I don’t know what it is. Sorry.
Q11. Any talk of acquiring SIGINT ships?
Not that I have heard of. That isn’t really something on our cards. While AMB could have a minimal SIGINT capability, as an example of something a hypothetical all-in-one could have, there are no discussions on a dedicated SIGINT ship. The focus right now, and in the next twenty years, has already been set through things like FASST-V, CDC, and AMB.
Those, plus the subs, potentially more JSS, and Rivers are going to tap us out hard. There is only so much you can invest in, and so much you have the capacity for.
Q12. Now that soldier systems have moved up the priority list, are you hearing any scuttlebutt on CCUE or SOCEM speeding up?
I mean we’re already progressing on clothing and equipment really quickly now. The CCUE Base Layer was delivered over the summer, we had another big order of Caiman helmets this year, new load carriage systems for the Light Infantry deliver next year, and CADPAT MT is still on track last I heard. The Canadian Rangers Uniform Project is also still apparently going steady.
So there is progress, but rolling it out to the wider army remains a challenge. New body armor is still in the 2030 timeframe last I checked, there were obviously some annoying issues this year with getting things like berets, and the CADPAT MT rollout has been annoying for some.
There is a desire now to speed up transitioning equipment from limited fielding to getting stuff out to the wider army. That is the big challenge right now. DICE has done great in getting things out there, but only limitedly. As with the Caiman, there is a path to wider fielding, and it’s been shown that it can be done.
The difference now is trying to speed up that process and get things into the wider army faster. We obviously want new body armour for both men and women. Women’s clothing is still a mixed bag and some of the timelines need to be better.
Now that it is on the priority list, I do see us moving forward on a lot of things. That will come through shortening the timeline between fielding and getting to the wider army, but it also needs to come from ensuring that there are proper supply chains in place, and that does fall on folks like Logistik Unicorp, available to support an expanding CAF without running into the historical bottlenecks we have seen.
Q13. We all remember you mentioning you’re tired of all things submarines after the CPSP competition. But you did promise to share your preference one day soon?
I will one day do a rewind on submarines, probably when the contract is done. There I will go over a lot of my personal thoughts and feelings as time went on and such. As I have said before, I studied both subs religiously, and had the honour of speaking to both sides several times.
I struggled with it, because both subs had clear advantages, and both fit different sides to what we might prioritize. I will one day get into it, but for now? I am content with what we put out and want to focus elsewhere.
Q14. When are HIMARS supposed to be delivered?
Delivery is still set to begin in 2029. IOC is set for 2030 and FOC for 2034. Sometime between now and then we should see an additional order for PRSM, hopefully soon before its backlog builds up too high.
Q15. Do you think the GDLS-C MCAV will be the Ajax? Or the Wolf (XM30)?
The discussion so far has mainly been surrounding Ajax, but GDLS-C has not confirmed yet what they plan to offer, be that Ajax, ASCOD, Wolf, or something unique to the family. I think for now, it’s safe to assume that it will be ASCOD/Ajax based.
Unless they come out and specifically say it is Wolf? I would go off that assumption.
Q16. Maybe dumb question but will the mid shore multi mission coast guard vessel be built in Canada?
Not a dumb question. Yes, they will be built in Canada.
As of now, a builder has not been contracted for the MSMM. The current expectation is for an award to take place in early 2028, with delivery sometime in the early 2030s. As I know it, the plan is for one company to build all six vessels.
Q17. Any chance of ARes units receiving LVM since the MSVS MILCOT is past EoL?
That would require the ARes to get any sort of love, which sadly is not the case right now. They’ll get something, but likely less than many hope. I would keep expectations low on any count for the foreseeable future.
MSVS MilCOTS has its own replacement project in the early stages. We have an Additional Logistics Vehicle (ALV) project on the books. We have the MSVS MilCOTS Recapitalization (MSVS R1) and a further-out Logistics Vehicle Recapitalization (LVR) after these two.
As of right now, all of these are in the ID stage and probably close to a decade out. In the meantime, we continue to try and make the MilCOTS work.
That includes things like the ISO Container Lifting System (ICLS), a minor project to provide an inexpensive and efficient means to load and offload ISO containers from existing platforms. The SMP will also be getting flat racks compatible with their load-handling system to provide a palletized lift capability to the Reserves.
So the answer is expect less, replacements are on the books but for the long-term, and we’re going to try to keep things working as best we can with new support systems and upgrades when possible, with a focus on containerized support.
Q18. Will we build our own version of Sgt Stout/Lokke air defense with off the shelf stuff made in Canada?
It’s possible, and some companies are already forming teams to try and do so. I won’t go saying who, due to confidentiality and what not, but there are now open discussions about Canadian-led or at least Canadian-majority teams to go after things like National CUAS, DDI, and future GBAD requirements like Enduring Phase II.
I have seen industry. I have talked to many. I think there will be a mix of things. 100% Canadian? Maybe not in most cases, certainly mixed in. I have seen what some companies, like Zighra, are doing. They’re cooking up some amazing concepts I’m telling you.
I would love to see Canadian solutions take the lead. In cases like CUAS? I think it is 100% possible, and I expect going into VSHORAD we will see a lot of Canadian companies really try to step up.
Q19. What year would the RCN have all its subs, RCD, CDC, GLAMM, AMB and four JSS ships in the water at the same time?
Around 2050, maybe around 2048-ish is the best timeline? GLAMM and AMB would be the same thing here. River-class deliveries run out to 2050-ish, CPSP out to 2042. GLAMM is unfunded, just a concept at this stage of things. If it got funded even now? Still at minimum a decade out at best.
CDC is unfunded, and its current expected timeline also pushes it out towards 2050. Even if we started work now, by the time we deliver even, say, 12? We are looking into the mid-2040s for all of them.
Even if EVERYTHING was funded tomorrow and there were absolutely zero issues? It would still be mid-2040s before we see everything delivered. Then we can talk about the AOPS replacement lolol.
Q20. I hear we’re getting new Trucks soon? What should I look out for?
If you see a Silverado 2500, congrats! You’ve met your LUV COTS. As I know it, you should start to see a broader rollout soon of the new 2500s. I have yet to see a photo of one in the wild, but fingers crossed soon!
The MP's real task are far more than policing, POW management and transfer, convoy escorts and traffic flow, along with rear area security are all real tasks they are slotted to do, but never really practice.
Didnt you mention DAME is awarding soon? Are they back to thr drawing board with it being a mess?