Happy Monday!
We are late. I know, and I apologize. I had some things come up this weekend, an unplanned trip, and some chaos. So sadly I got very distracted. You guys didn't let up either! Over 60 questions this week, and a lot of really great ones.
Sadly I could not get to them all, and I wanna. As such I am making the choice to not do a Slido this week, and instead put effort into doing that large backlog, and get that out as this weeks Q&A. I don't want everyone jistbreasking anyways, and the demand is so large that I feel it is best to do it this way for the week.
I apologize if that is upsetting, and I promise it is only this week! That way I can get back to my proper schedule of things, as this week I am very busy as well. I have to go out of town for a very important doctors appointment, which sadly loses me a day this week. So I am trying to fit all the puzzle pieces together. Also have some birthdays this weekend as well for two of the kids!
Anywho, we have a lot of great questions this week, so don't let me hold us up!
Q1. How’s the C9 replacement going?
It exists lol. That's about as much as could be said honestly. There isn't a whole lot there at the moment, other than that it's in the books and planned for the future. It's young, and not seemingly a priority, so it sorta falls into the 'sitting in ID phase' that lots of projects kinda exist in until there is some love given to them.
I have no concrete details on timelines, budget, etc., at this time either. All we sorta know is that it exists, it's something being discussed and looked into, and ideas are being drawn up. Hopefully, we won't wait long for info.
Q2. Noah, have you heard anything about the Army preparing to de-prioritize some projects (like Anti-X) in order to fund IDFM?
I, respectfully, can't speculate hard on the second half of that. I don't wanna be the one to say that "X is being cut to fund Y" unless it is very clear, and in this case I can't say where funding is going from place to place. That is a deep, interdepartmental question that oftentimes isn't cut and dry.
Are some projects being deprioritized? Yes. There are several that have been pushed back, and I don't fully know which ones in full. Is LAX one of them? Maybe. It's had ups and downs and delays to getting things, but I don't wanna say that is budget related.
See, there is a difference between budgets being cut and projects moving up and down the priority list. They can go hand in hand, very easily, but not always and so I like to make that distinction. I will say that this isn't coming out of nowhere. The Army Warfighting Concept set the mandate for what capabilities to prioritize, and there was recognition that with its release some things would move down the list.
Soldier systems, autonomous systems, GBAD/CUAS are all major parts of that concept. The Army expects to fight a long, static fight in any sort of major conflict, a fight that prioritizes survivability in positional warfare. There is a renewed focus on the middle battle, the fight in that area 10-25km out, where we are seeing increasing density of uncrewed systems, cheap fires, and sensors. There is also securing the air littoral.
So we need the ability to detect, deter, and defend while also being able to make up for large losses with cheaper, more expendable systems. That means a focus on sensors, long-range fires, autonomous systems, and better kit for surviving in a trench-to-trench, gridlocked environment.
Things that don't focus on that, that are not compatible with that doctrine, will fall down the list quickly, because that's the fight we expect in Latvia. It will be positional, with breakthrough opportunities to be mobile coming at cost and increasing rarity.
There is a lot in AWC, but for the sake of discussing equipment priority? That's the fight that will matter. Keep in mind also, while money can be allocated that doesn't mean spent, and money is still not infinite. There will be prioritization across the board to ensure that the needed things get funded first and quickly.
That is beyond the CAF and DND. That is into the TB and such, which itself has a mandate to ensure responsible spending, and even in this environment isn't gonna fund everything. So to answer? Yes, things are being deprioritized, and for what exactly we don't know. We can very easily guess, but that isn't knowing.
Q3. What is a cancelled Canadian-developed project that you wished was never cancelled (Canadair CL-84 Dynavert my beloved)?
I always wondered what would have happened had we adopted the TH-495. A heavy, tracked vehicle family over continuing to develop the LAV family. There is a very interesting timeline where Canada heads into the 21st century with a fleet of tracked vehicles as our backbone, and to me that is a very interesting hypothetical.
I always mourn the Canadian autonomous industry as well, that early autonomous industry that sadly never developed as I think it could have. We had so many great concepts that could have been better developed. The CL-89 family, CL-227, even the Theseus-class UUVs of the 80s and 90s.
We had an autonomous industry. We had the tools to do more with it. We had the people and the basis to do so much more, and yet we sadly didn't, and while they aren't cancelled, I do feel they fit into this sort of 'lost in time' concepts that sadly never went anywhere for us, didn't build up to better and greater.
AMPS, the conceptual marine reactor, is a more fantastical but also interesting hypothetical when looking at today's push for small and micro reactors. Canada already had experience with SLOWPOKE, and developing that concept further was never out of the question, neither was the need for more energy capacity.
Translate that into the broader ecosystem, and you unlock a world of possibilities that sadly dies past the 80s and the collapse of new nuclear investment, like many things. The 90s and early 2000s feel like such a dark age in this regard. It's a black hole of concepts, idealism and wonder that tore down all we had built, all the concepts we had developed, all this capacity and tossed it to the side.
It's a shame, a deep shame in my books how much we lost. How close we came to being ahead of the curve only to throw it all away. I despise it. I mourn it as a child born after this era that I never got to see it come to fruition.
Q4. Say LUV is signed tomorrow and Roshel wins, how fast could we expect to see vehicles roll off the line and into service?
Assuming we're looking at speed and priority? We could get the first Senators by the end of the year. Easy. If a contract were signed tomorrow? Deliveries could easily begin before the year is out. Roshel can produce over a dozen Senators a day.
There is capacity already to deliver vehicles to the CAF straight off the line within the first few weeks of a contract being signed, and to keep that line continuously running from that point. That isn't an issue so long as you don't want to extensively modify the platform before delivery, which luckily for us LUV keeps things very simple for the most part.
Deliveries of all variants likely stretch into 2027, but the first in service? Could easily be delivered in the first couple weeks after a contract is signed, maybe quicker.
Q5. Any updates on ATGMs for the CAF? Possibility of the selected model being built under license in Canada?
As above it's a work in progress. There have been expectations, they came to pass with nothing, things have shifted a lot the last few months as AWC and restructuring were developed. There have been moves up and down the list and a lot of things now kinda sitting and waiting in the middle of figuring everything out. We will see by this point, the plan remains the same.
Contract award is still 2027/2028. RFI is this year or next. We still have PAX-R, PAX-M, and MAX-M. We still want deliveries to occur before 2030. None of that so far has changed, luckily. That is still very much the plan as I last heard it.
As for localized production? There have been talks, and there is a desire to see it. It isn't as I know a demand, but there is a heavy interest in manufacturing an ATGM domestically both in the CAF and more importantly in the DIA. Certainly, if MBDA or Rafael threw that out there? It would be a major advantage on their end for the industry folks.
Q6. Time for one more LUV recap article before the RFP drops? It's gotta be any week now.
Maybe a small post. I feel I have talked everything I could about LUV on here, and so it would mainly be a small recap, not really much new. I think LUV is great, but I have talked so, so much about it that I don't know what else can be said save for a recap for the sake of it. I likely would do it, mind you, but it's also one of those things. You know?
Q7. Is Canada negotiating a Canadian configuration of GlobalEye? Are there already thoughts on a future AEW&C that’s more suited for Canada in the long, long term?
Yes and yes, to an extent because almost all GlobalEye aircraft, in some way, are unique to their customers, even if that is in minor modifications, the installation of specific communication equipment, etc. Almost every GlobalEye will have some minor changes to it.
For a Canadian configuration we know what the RCAF wants. They want 360⁰ air-search coverage (have to distinguish over 360⁰ pure) and air-to-air refueling. Saab was very clear to me that they could support 360⁰ through Watcheye, and while they weren't big on it, would support air-to-air refueling, though that is also a Bombardier issue.
Watcheye utilizes an X-band radar system in the underbelly canoe, replacing Seaspray and adds an aft radar. It technically provides 360⁰ air-search coverage, though likely not what the RCAF wants. We unfortunately have no details on what this X-band system is, its capabilities, etc., so I can't judge it.
X-band systems do have advantages such as high angular resolution and target discrimination, strong performance against surface and maritime contacts, and good sensitivity to small, slow, low-signature objects like drones, but its practicality in the actual AEWC role, especially in what we want, is limited.
The range of an X-band system in this configuration will be limited by the space and power available in the canoe. Atmospheric attenuation for an X-band system is far higher than at L or S-band, so for a given power and aperture, detection distance falls considerably.
X-band is also the band that low-observable shaping and radar-absorbing materials are best optimized to defeat. That includes fifth and sixth-generation fighters, low-observable cruise missiles, low-observable uncrewed platforms and hypersonic missiles. That's the same class of emerging threats that Canada is looking for our future AEWC system to help counter.
So while an X-band system can work, it's limited and not optimized for the threats we face. For Saab, the options are limited without a major redesign. X-band systems produce a narrow beam from a physically small antenna, which is how and why they can integrate an X-band radar system into such a small space while maintaining some form of viability.
That though is part of the future development tracks the Federal government speaks on when talking about the future. It isn't to them about having the best system available, the perfect solution, because no one fits that bill for them.
That lack of capability in areas isn't ignored by the Federal government. It's actively acknowledged by almost everyone I have talked with. That also isn't to say everyone wants a larger platform beyond the 6500. That also isn't a universal belief. Wedgetail had issues with its size that were discussed.
The belief around is that GlobalEye will deliver faster, will provide significant economic benefit, has a healthy, active base of orders to build off of (including the expectation of future orders), and that Erieye is more than enough to provide a baseline capability.
Same goes for NORAD integration, which the Feds will very much tell you they see that as a political risk, not an integration one. They don't think GlobalEye can't be NORAD-compatible, the risk for them is if the United States will be cooperative in ensuring so. The United States could be friendly, cooperative and support it or they couldn't. That isn't on GlobalEye. That's on the political environment, which no one can predict.
There is a belief that there is a path to bring GlobalEye up to the standard we want, and do it in a way that makes the platform (and Global 6500) more exportable, builds industrial capacity, and provides long-term economic benefit through a large user base. Be that through manufacturing, training services, simulators, etc.
I don't know the future plans for GlobalEye, or what the Feds and Saab are fully talking about. That is confidential to them, but there is that belief that it is better to get on GlobalEye as an 80% solution, secure the industrial benefits offered, and get capabilities delivered more quickly.
Then we can look at how we improve on the platform to make it better fit our requirements. That is in itself a major risk, but the current environment not only rewards this kind of thinking and action, but actively encourages it. GlobalEye won't be the last we see of this.
That future exists, and I think there is always a pathway if you put your heart into things. That's the idealist in me, but that comes through a long, hard road to get there. That is the sacrifice and struggle you accept to develop capacity and build an industry.
The Turks, Koreans, Swedes themselves all went through it. The road home is paved in struggle. That is the sacrifice the Feds envision. That is the pathway they are chasing. What that looks like? I can't say.
Q8. When are we getting an Indirect Fires winner? We all know it is going to be GDLS-C so I am not sure why it is taking so long lol.
I wouldn't be so confident in things. It's not clear-cut. It's a fight, both on the defence side and politically. That's all I'll say, but it isn't a clear winner. I can say that. It'll be a fight. As for timelines? Depends, but the general band is we want 2027/2028 contract award and are pushing that way, might be 2029, with initial deliveries in the 2029-2031 timeline, with IOC in 2031.
Q9. Any news regarding the trials of the CB90s?
They were trialed as part of ongoing efforts to modernize our special reaponse capabilities, they had a good reception, lots of love, and that was about it. Whether that follows up with a purchase? I don't know. My sources when it comes to that side of things are sadly limited, if you catch my drift.
Q10. For munitions of the F-35 (plus others...) would something like MALD/SPEAR-EW be acquired?
I have yet to see it included in anything official. SPEAR has been included as a possibility, but never saw SPEAR-EW specifically listed or named. That is a distinction to me. There is certainly interest.
There will always be, because we expect to operate in an increasingly contested environment, where our adversaries not only challenge us in the physical space but in the electromagnetic, digital, etc.
The demand for decoys and integrated EW capabilities on our fighter fleet, on almost everything, will only grow as the threat environment expands. So there is obvious interest in these capabilities, but in recent stuff I have seen neither specifically named.
Q11. Do you think Roshel will be picked for the other LUV phase? Or are we going all in on the Milverado 2.0?
I would be shocked if they weren't. I think I can see the vision, the division of contracts to spread the love, and part of that includes Roshel. I can't say if that's the plan, that's just my hypothetical, but I can sorta see the concept just from watching around.
Q12. Maybe quick dumb question. Will the corvettes have more guns than just a single 57/40mm, like some 30mms? Or still being debated?
There is almost never a dumb question. I say that because some of you are weird and ask weird things. Even if it's the most basic question, the easiest and simple one-word answer possible, you should know that I will answer, because I am here to help and educate.
As for your question, it is almost guaranteed for a platform the size of CDC that there will be secondary gun systems. That is standard on warships of this class, not universal but standard. All proposals I have seen include one.
That secondary gun is actually increasingly important when it comes to countering autonomous systems. When dealing with any sort of contested, autonomous environment layers become significantly important to not only countering different threats, but ensuring you can stretch out the depth of your magazine capacity. Gun-based systems, like a MK38, are an important layer in that system, providing coverage and cheap efficiency that relying solely on a main gun couldn't provide.
So yes, they will very likely include one!
Q13. Is it true the Blackhawk deal has been put on ice?
On ice is strong. That is very strong honestly. I don't wanna say on ice. I would say that there is more debate, and there is a renewed look at whether a sole-source is the right option to go with. That comes from political, but also departmental concern about the extensive use of sole-sourcing the last year.
A sole-source is looking increasingly unlikely, unless it's really fought for. Keep in mind, the point of nTACS Phase I being segmented was to facilitate this. It was to deliver Blackhawk quickly without touching the wider procurement. That now becomes a bit weird if that plan changes, and creates some messiness.
CANSOF are gonna fight for it, and maybe they'll come out on top. However right now it's in a weird place, increasingly unlikely and the Feds don't seem interested, but not on hold or off the table.
Q14. Wait, was the LUV already chosen? Where have you heard this info?
Phase I of LUV was planned to take, basically, the Blue fleet approach. It is essentially commercial, and as part of efforts to deliver capabilities quickly there have been moves to start the acquisition of Silverado 2500/3500. How extensive this is I'm still trying to work out, as well as delivery timelines and such, but they are out there and starting delivery.
Q15. So we’re choosing a DAME platform and haven’t figured out what to do with it? Am I reading this right?
No. I apologize if it came that way. What I meant was that the priorities have shifted.
Anytime you have a capability or project, any discussion of them and their requirements inevitability comes back to a priority list of requirements and assessments. That includes things like high-level mandatories, but also includes how you rank them in importance.
That is what has changed, and I can say this I feel, but before interoperability wasn't a big factor for DAME. It wasn't a concern for a domestic fleet that wasn't planned to leave the country. Now, as the fleet has shifted where it'll be, that question is more in contention and debate.
That's one example. It isn't requirements that have changed, or been added, but how important the existing ones are seen. Stuff like modularity, payload capacity, etc., are other areas of increasing importance the last few weeks to the fleet and future plans, because we recognize that these fleets will all grow as demand for them grows in the new Army.
So we know what we wanna do with them, just a matter of what capabilities we prioritize from the fleet.
Q16. You mentioned last week to keep ARes expectations low in an answer, why? To expand on that, are you hearing anything about what's actually going on in 2 Div?
I unfortunately can't talk on this right now. Sorry. I can't discuss those things in detail, nor can I talk about what's going on in a way I feel comfortable sharing and ensures we follow our policies. Sorry.
Q17. I hope you continue to update amb and other projects. I’m still somewhat confused on what amb is going to be exactly. Logistics? Command? Landing? Etc so weird
It will be something lololol. I jest, but the best way to imagine AMB is as a Joint Support Ship in concept. More specifically, what we describe and how we envision AMB is very similar to something like HNLMS Karel Doorman or similar multi-role support ships like HMNZS Canterbury, which is likely to be a bit lacking to our concept.
Karel Doorman remains the best concept of what we're viewing. Someone else has used the term Sea-Based Operations Platform, which I can loosely define here as a platform designed to support and command an independent maritime operation including a sustained aviation capability, replenishment, and sealift in a single platform.
That is the basic concept, and you work from there to what that looks like. It isn't an assault platform, even if it has landing craft and a well deck. What replenishment looks like is also open, but AMB will likely fit all three of these main capabilities, along with several smaller ones.
How the RCN executed on that? I don't know yet. They're still developing the concept, but we should hear more very, very soon.
Q18. With some interest in CB90. What do you think of a small fast attack vessel for RCN? Is it even worth it for Canada? Also, where did this discussion come from?
It doesn't really work. There isn't really a large navy demand for it, and the trials were not for the navy as an organization. There is far greater interest, as you can imagine, from the CANSOF guys with a purpose for such a craft. Navy probably wouldn't even have much to do with them really.
They have no big demands for such a craft. Domestically the role they would fill is better set by things like FASST-V, which fills what we need far better than CB90.
Q19. For nTACS moving towards super medium helis, are there no thoughts on additional cheap lighter helis? Maybe a light maritime heli for CDC and AOPV too? Thoughts?
There was. It was an active part of the discussion last fall. The determination was that what nTACS itself needed for its requirements was a medium-class helicopter, a dedicated attack helicopter, supplemented by additional Chinook. That was the combo that worked out.
I still think there is room for light helicopters, a lot of room. Quicker to produce, cheaper, expendable helicopters that can fulfill a large number of tasks that could free up larger assets. Anti-Tank, CUAS, DomOps, ISR, support SAR, support light infantry, as the manned part of a manned-unmanned team.
Some of the things a small helicopter can do very, very well and doesn't require a larger, more expensive medium platform. For something like the AOPS, where ASW will always be a secondary task, having something that is there for a rotary capability, that can support heavy lift, ISR, crew transfer, etc., is in my mind insanely valuable.
You don't need Cyclone for that, and it's something we're seeing is super cool and eye-opening with the 429 on Robert Hampton Gray. There are lots of things a small helicopter does that a larger helicopter isn't needed for. I think there is lots of value across the board there.
Q20. Any TAPV upgrade plans to get it into a position it's actually useful for LCAV?
Oh the concepts 100% exist. I have seen them lolol. Add on a new 30mm Bushmaster, add on a UAS or ATGM capability, new commander sight, new Laser Warning System, new Battle Management System... all of them have been discussed in concept.
Funny enough I hear more of TAPV cuts now than upgrades, so we will see what the future holds. The concept is there, the work has been put into it and we have a basic concept of how it would operate, but we are also in a weird point for things.
So we will see if it ever comes to fruition. Lots of people would rather expand LUV and use the money for upgrading TAPV for something else. There are a lot of folks who see it as pointless and a waste over just doing something similar with a new platform.
There will be no Slido this week.
Great work, as always.
Q7 was a great, it helped me understand Globaleye much better, using relatively few words. Thanks!
Q15 great clarification on DAME. That makes a lot sense, where the original statement left me quite confused what you were talking about. I hadn't realized that we were starting to think about using elsewhere, where a shared platform might be an asset, but it makes sense with a lot of the political things that are going on.