Let's talk with Noah (09/29/25): Special CDC edition! (also CV90, Boeing)

Good Evening everyone,

You guys REALLY wanna talk about this Corvette, dont you! I am happy to see everyone so engaged on the project, so I guess we can enjoy a special CDC edition of Lets Talk eith Noah!

I aint against doing specific editions if people really wanna ask questions on specific things. I'm also not against doing more than once of these a week. Is that somwthing people are interested in?

As always you can ask your questions, and vote on others, over on our Slido page. It will be up until Monday! A lot of you sent stuff in DMs also but I prefer the stuff there as it can be voted on and also kept open to everyone. If you enjoy my content also consider supporting TNSR over on our Kofi!

---

Q1. Will the CDC use a new hull or Canadianize an existing one?

The current plan is to have the future Continental Defence Corvette be Design-Built-Equipped in Canada. If you take CRCN Topshees words to heart than there is no current design out there that meets Canada’s specific demands.

This means that a new hull design will be required, and that design will come from a Canadian firm, be that Vard, Serco, or one of the shipyards. We know Davies has a design that they will be offering.

We also know that Seaspan is planning to show off their own design eventually. Irving is likely already full with the Rivers, however I wouldn't say they are 100% out either.

So this won't be taking an existing design, like a MEKO or Pohjanmaa and modifying it to fit our requirements.

Q2. Will the CDC use CMS330 or will they go with a non-American CMS?

While Lockheed Canada is a subsidiary of the American company, believe me, calling them American is likely gonna get you into a fight. They do not take kindly to being called not Canadian. Nor is it fair to them.

As for CMS330? It will 1000% be the CDC Combat Management System. That goes without question. It aint even a debate.

Q3. Your thoughts on the SERCO Atlas 105KG Corvette? Seems to meet most needs, right size, proven hull type, etc. Or are we looking at a smaller design for the CDC.

I am aware of the various Atlas platforms, and while they would not be my first pick, at the glance, they do meet the desired requirements.

They aren't the heaviest armed option, nor do I know if they have any Ice-Strengthening. Thats something I could certainly ask the company. I have no idea if they plan to submit but I would be shocked if they didn't.

The thing is, we don't have anything really to go off of for CDC. We know quite a bit but there are still several unknowns, like its desired endurance and crewing. Until we have a solid RFI or something similar drop than we are mostly speculating.

I will note also, the project is still working on finalizing it's requirements so some things are bound to shift around.

Q4. I worry about any corvette project falling into the LCS trap. Exquisite systems at exorbitant cost but little to no survivability. What do we do with them?

I get that feeling. I have been very open about my own concerns regarding the project.

However I will say that talking around about the project, the people involved are taking great care to be both realistic and tempering expectations. They seem very aware of the scope creep that can quickly happen, as well as the challenges of asking to much.

While we might question the concept of a ‘Mini-Halifax’ both in terms of if it will get approval and its effects on the River-class, which are valid concerns, I will say that the concept theyre working with in itself isn't that far-fetched.

Compare it to the idea of a 1000-tonne little corvette, running around primarily with mission containers, including possibly something like Mk.70 and the current iteration of the demands doesnt seem to far fetched!

And rightfully so the concept from last year, especially examining offers like Vigilance Flight II did raise these same concerns with me. I was very much worried that we were looking for to much in to tight demands, relying on new technologies and concepts to bring everything together perfectly.

That was never gonna work IMO. That concept was always doomed to either make sacrifices or run into problems down the line.

Now that we are talking a proper Corvette/Light Frigate? I don't think the demands being asked are to much. Certainly they're in line with what many of our allies are thinking.

Yes there is a demand for Modularity, likely in the form of dedicated space for containers or a mission bay. That is fairly common these days, and not at all unique to what we are wanting.

Same with a heavy desire for space and integration for future UXV. That also isnt unique to us, and will be the future standard for most naval vessels. UAS, UUV, USV… All will be a common part of a ships arsenal within the next decade.

All of these are possible in the platform we are asking. The big difference between this and many others is the desire for a PC 6 level of ice-strengthening, or at least similar.

That is something that is fairly unique to us. We again also don't yet know the range and crewing requirements, which may also be unique to us.

So I do get these concerns, and I even get why some might believe this is a vessel looking more capable and larger than needed. Those are both very valid concerns to have.

If we are looking at it and asking though if we are asking to much out of this platform? I would say the team has kept it fairly well in the realm of realism and possibility. If a ‘Minifax’ is what they want? Then they are keeping those expectations fairly well grounded.

Q5. Will the future corvette use Mk.41 as it's VLS of choice or should we go with something like Spyder?

If we go with a VLS it will be either Mk.41 or Mk.56. This keeps commonality with the River-class, either in system or at least munitions. CAMM is likely out. It makes no sense to commit to new missiles if other, similar ones are already in the supply chain, like ESSM.

Also it’s Sylver! Spyder is an Israeli GBAD system. It also isn't an attractive option because it is objectively worse than Mk.41 here. It has less variety, would not share commonality with the River-class, and Aster, while cool and with its own nice capabilities, isn't enough to justify.

So a VLS will likely be Mk.41. There were some debates a few months ago about whether the cost and the obvious design requirements to fit VLS were worth it. I think the common belief is that these will have some form of VLS.

You can't deny the value they bring in futureproofing the design!

Q6. What updates or rumours do you have on NTACs?

Not much. There were studies done over the summer to try and determine what exactly we are looking for and what platforms we might be interested in. It's still in the early phases of figuring out exactly what Canada’s tactical airlift fleet will look like in the future.

We should hear more next year!

Q7. Weekly question asking about LUV?

Same as last week. When something happens I will let you guys know.

Q8. Can you expand on your tidbit about the Cyclone replacement?

At this second no, but expect more information this week. 👀

Q9. At one point we were seriously looking at procuring CV90s, do you think that would have been a good idea

That would have been CCV, and I always remind that it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the CV90 would win, even if often said it was on the track to. I also love to point out that, of the four options, it was the only one that was tracked!

I am actually not a fan of acquiring a tracked vehicle for several reasons.

First off, I believe the LAV platform still has more that can be done with it. I believe we have not hit the limits of the platform, especially talking MCAV. Thats a minor one.

Second, we have to ask ourselves what role we want to play, particularly in a European conflict. These tracked platforms won't have much utility here. They will primarily be acquired to bolster our European capabilities.

That's all fine and dandy, however we should ask the question on if we want to be another generalist force on the continent, to which there certainly isnt a lack of Tracked IFV in Europe, or if we want to lean into the LAV platform and, perhaps, lean more into the lighter, rapid, mobile model.

I certainly have heard arguments both ways, esepcially given our lack of Airlift and Sealift capabilities to move these platforms across the Atlantic. This on top of most of our tracked maintenance capabilities now being consolidated out West.

Yes, Tracked platforms do have their advantages over wheeled platforms. Are they enough to day that it is an absolute that we need them? Not to me. Not when the LAV could still provide the MCAV role in itself.

Some food for thoughts. I dont think its as simple as some present. Theres a lot of questions to be asked on what we want to be, and what capabilities we determine are needs over wants. Same goes for future tanks.

Q10. Is it true the government opened discussions with Boeing again during this fighter review? Were they asking about the Super Hornet as an option?

Boeing was talked with as part of the Fighter Review. Everyone except KAI was at least consulted about what they could offer and such. I don't know what exactly was talked about with Boeing. Thats likely between the Ministers and them.

Nor do I know if they are still being talked with and such. The only two I know are Saab and Lockheed. Keep in mind those two are the only ones really getting visits.

---

Remember that you can ask your questions for next week by following this link. Dont be afraid to ask multiple questions if you like!