Let's talk with Noah (10/06/25): LUSV, LAV stuff, AOPS to the Coast Guard, Ro/Ro, SAFE, building Submarines

Good Morning everyone!

You guys were REALLY talkative this week! Over thirty questions across Slido and DMs for me. That is absolutely insane, but also amazing to see how excited and engaged everyone has become with this!

This week is special. Today I'll be answering not ten, but sixteen quesyions for you guys! Also unlike last week we won't be dominating ot with questions on one thing. You guys asked some really great questions this week!

Sadly, I won't get to nearly everyone and I apologize. There is always next week though! So submit as many questions as you like!

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. Any updates on the CMAR (Canadian Modular Assault Rifle)?

Not really. The C8A4 is coming, and initial delivery for CMAR, assuming it sticks as a seperate platform, was still in the 2027/2028 range last I saw. That hasn't really changed, but it's been a while since I've asked around about the project.

There is a desire to get stuff like that moved up quicker though, especially because Colt is the only possible provider it skips the need for a proper competition.

I have specifically heard CMAR as something very much wanted to be done quicker. On that note, I got a chance to see Colt at CANSEC and it was beautiful.

I will look into it for you!

Q2. Are there any plans to Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles like the Australians to the navy?

There's talks, early talks. I don't know of any specific projects for LUSV, however the navy is exploring the concept actively. It is something Topsher himself has mentioned as a want before. I can't remember where exactly though? Might be either on the Herle Burly show or when he spoke at the Asia Pacific Foundation.

Anyways there is a want, and there is active exploration of the concept but nothing on the books as far as I know. Vard put out a design for a really funky looking one a few months ago in CDR!

LUSV though are still a very new concept, and the technology is still in its infancy. Theres a lot of hype, and a lot of promises behind them. Certainly there is an avenue for exploration.

I like the method of taking a Commercial hull and then tailoring and modifying it to task. The USN has done it, Dutch plan to use a Damen Fast Crew Supplier vessel, Type 91 has some commercial designs in concept

That is a good first step in the process before investing billions in Corvette-sized, specially-designed LUSV.

Q3. If we were to ever have a mixed fighter fleet 88 F 35s and jet type 2 (to me it would have to be a larger # than the 88 f 35s) What options would you pick/rank

Sixth-Gen if we could get into a program that wasnt on fire, American or closed off. Thats the only concept I truely care for. FCAS is on fire though, no one wants American and GCAP we could likely buy but will never be a true equal partner in. Its also expensive.

If you want my full breakdown of opinions, you can check out my economics of the F-35 post where I go into a lot of details about fighter jets.

Q4. Is MEDCAV going to be based on the LAV or will it be another vehicle type like the Jaguar or CV90?

It will likely be LAV-based but it's far to early to tell. The project is still in the Identification phase. It is not far along enough to truely say what's wanted. It may certainly have a tracked option. I dont agree with that myself. I have gone iver this last week, and a few other times before.

I think theres better money to be spent. I think its not necessarily a need in regards to our European commitments, adds another vehicle type to the fleet, would be very costly to set up the proper infrastructure and maintenance capabilities that have now been consolidated, no one can tell me how you would even get these vehicles to Europe without a Sealift capability (that goes for the LAV too)

Thats a multi-billion dollar project that sadly is better spent elsewhere unless we have a serious talk about our commitments in Europe, and even then it isnt the top of my list of priorities.

I will happily go more into this topic if people want a full breakdown, but for now this is the gist of where I stand.

Q5. Do you think there is any native use for the Lav 700, maybe to get around the weight limits of Lav 6.0

Maybe? I've honestly never gave it more than a passing thought. If we can get what we want out of the LAV 6 than the answer is no. There needs to be a tangible need to moce up to something like the 700. Maybe MCAV might be that? However I am fairly confident we could get that in the LAV 6 if we wanted. We've already seen it lol.

As of right now I don't see it. There are issues with the LAV 6 and cutting it close to what it is capable of in terms of weight and such, however GDLS-C seems fairly confident they can do most of what we would want with the platform, and now we also have the LAV 10x10, as ugly and as much as I look at her in confusion as a possibility in several roles, like artillery, GBAD, Bridge-Laying, etc.

If GDLS-C gets IFM than there will be even more justification to try and get as much on the LAV 10x10 over anything.

Q6. With CCG now under DND, should AOPS maybe de-arm and move fully to them, freeing the RCN to mission-focus on fighting platforms like CDC and RCD?

No. The AOPS are good ships, do exactly what the navy wants of them, gives them the ability to go into the Arctic for the majority of the year without relying on the Coast Guard, are versatile Patrol and Support platforms that have yet to fully realize their potential, are great for community-building and promotion, actually have a mandate that people cry the Coast Guard doesnt have, and also are the newest platform the navy has for the next ten years.

Like CDC amd the River-class are a decade out, and those are for the first ones. By that point Harry Dewolfe will have been in service for almost fifteen years. For the next decade they are the newest, most modern surface vessels the navy will have at their disposal.

I am the AOPS biggest defender. I admit that openly. They obviously have had their issues, as they were expected to being some of the first vessels build as part of NSS. That isnt to excuse them, but the context is needed.

I could go on and on. I have! I wrote on the AOPS a few months ago, gawking over them. I'm even one of the few people who doesnt really see much issue with the armament, at least not to the degree other people scream about it.

So no, I don't think we should. I think the AOPS do almost exactly as wanted, are great tools, and have been constantly proving themselves the last two years despite some hiccups.

I still believe that they haven't even reached their full potential. That includes as test platforms for a number of capabilities ahead of the River-class. Theres lots of cool stuff happening with them! RMDS, COBRA, UxV, even limited Submarine rescue. They work them! (although they should not be looked at as a true replacement for a Submarine Support vessel)

Q7. With the Navy is spending do you see Canada adding a naval ro-ro ship to speed up delivery of equipment to Europe given the smaller transport aircraft fleet?

We should have some capability. Its not negotiable to me. Doesn't have to be navy. Could be they're civilian-manned and rented out or used as excess capacity to other ferry services when not needed, could be an arrangement like Federal Fleet.

Point is we need something stable and available rapidly. Something that isnt renting commercial when needed, because that doesn't cut it. You want a Manoeuvre Division? You need to be able to actually move it to where it needs to be, and that aint here.

You can't do that by Airlift. It isn't practical. The alternative is talking again about having large amounts of assets prepositioned in places like Europe.

We actually saw this yesterday in the Canadian Army Capstone Operating Concept, where this very concern was raised lol. It isnt like this isnt discussed frequently. This is a very valid, very real concern.

Q8. Is there any news on planned improvements to the HDW class?

Unless you count new capabilities, like new UAS, Remote Mine Disposal System, or COBRA? all of which are either unmanned systems or containerized? Than no, I can't talk in details. I dont know if you count unmanned systems and containers as improvements here.

If you do, than those are all in the works! The AOPS will also likely be used as a mothership for whatever UUV the UEA project acquires down the road.

Q9. Hearing any rumors on the potential Pacific and / or Atlantic OTHR options?

I heard rumors of a Pacific one. I mentioned it in a newsletter a few months ago, however since then it has been denied to me by several people over the last few months.

So I'll revisit it in the new year and see. If it still gets denied than consider it a no-go. There are lots of ideas and concepts lurking around. Sometimes they get confused for actual projects, and work through the rumor mill. It happens.

Q10. When are we going to hear another groundbreaking NG original podcast from tkms? Any success in coordinating a 1 to 1?

That won't happen sadly. TKMS has very friendly people, however they aint talkative to me much, and when they are they take a while to respond. No hate. They have zero reason to be focused on me. They dont have to convince me to buy their sub, and public perception doesnt win contracts.

That is the primary reason my sub article is taking so long though lol.

Q11. Given limits on deploying MBTs abroad and Europe’s ample MBT fleets, should Canada pursue CV90120 as a niche light tank role, with MCAV centered on CV9035?

Mark, this one is for you lol. I have heard the concept a lot over the last several months, and im interested in it. It is to early to speak on MCAV, and I don't like a tracked option as I said last week about CV-90.

However so long as you acknowledge the CV90120 as the Medium Tank it is and the trade-offs that brings? Than maybe we can discuss the merits of it. Light is good for us. Manoeuvrable is good for us.

We spoke about it last week lol. We need to understand our role and what we want to bring to the table. Are we going to be in the thick of it? With MBT and IFV running around Eastern Europe?

Or should we look for something not necessarily light, but lighter, more rapid, and a complement to other partners on the continent. The same issues with Sealift still exist with a Tank, unless again we keep a large amount of the fleet prepositioned in Latvia, and maybe we do.

It's certainly something I'm sure will be discussed in more depth over the coming years. Inflection Point and the Capstone do set a direction for a more dispersed, rapid army. However that isnt it coming out against things like MBT or IFV.

So we will see. Im open to it, but in also very much open to most things. I aint hard to convince in giving things a shot.

Q12. There was a question last week about which VLS would be used for the CDC project and it made me wonder about the VLS for the KSS-III if we go with that option.

The KSS-III VLS for CDC? No. It isnt an exact copy of K-VLS. You don't get that full commonality. Its primarily designed around the Hyunmoo IV-IV. K-VLS itself is gonna have worse issues than other VLS mentioned last week because it still adds new munitions (that won't be able to be shared with the River-class), which the navy won't want to do and is even less interoperable with allies than something like Sylver.

So its a no from me.

Q13. Now that mixed fleet for CPSP is dead done, how do you think canadas involvement in SAFE may impact the decision?

The political establishment like SAFE. It provides access to joint procurement opportunities, which is turn opens up more opportunities for Canadian industry to get easier access to large-scale European partnerships. The hope is also that it will give more opportunities for Caandian manufacturers, or attract some new ones here. Its a great relationship builder also, and can be a great opening to further economic collaboration.

The thing about SAFE is that, while it's certainly a factor in the process and a benefit to TKMS, I don't like talking about SAFE much because the fact is we don't have all the details at this time.

We are just beginning proper negotiations about it. Our percentage of content, the terms and conditions, they're all up in the air right now. You can't talk about something well when the details aren't set.

I have talked about SAFE twice in the last month (you can find them here and here) and I will continue to track negotiations. However, as I discussed there, it is hard to talk about it as this definitive in everything when it isnt ironed out.

Yes it's a factor, no matter what, however I can't give a proper assessment of its potential until I know exactly what we get out of this. We could very much not get the deal we want out of this still. I dont think that will happen. I think we will get a fair deal, even if its 50% like France wants. However thats the stage we are at.

Keeping all that in mind, I do think Team One Korea has enough potential and capability to counteract the economic side of TKMS + SAFE. At the end of the day this contract will be won by the team able to deliver the most benefit to Canada. That isnt just Industry, or Capability, or Economic Benefit but a winning combination of all of the above.

SAFE will play a part but it won't be the sole reason. It does help even the playing field a bit over the juggernauts of Hanwha, Hyundai and a very active Korean government but it isnt flipping the table on its own.

Q14. Now that you've done podcasts. Who would you like to Interview if you could?

Everyone! Im a fairly open person to talking to people. I do get anxious and auch but I've done this a few times now. Obviously Mcguinty, Fuhr, Carignan, Topshee, Wright, and Speiser-Blanchet would be the holy grails for someone like me but I would love to talk with Industry more.

Q15. Morning, now that the Army's LRSS is cancelled, what are the options?another LAV based system, go to a TAPV?, or have a much more dispersed option.

Lets be clear. It might not be officially cancelled yet. However the project is dead from all I hear and not going to deliver in full. The obvious solution from here is tethered drones. Thats the one I have heard the most, atleast for now. They’re cheap, easy to integrate, extendable and can be highly modular.

UAS are the common system you will see thrown at here. Its easy to put a drone in a box on just about anything. That comes with it's own trade-offs and capability sacrifices, depending on the platform, but better something that works than something that doesnt. Simple as.

Q16. Is TKMS proposal to build subs in Canada realistic? It'll be almost 15 years for them to deliver 6 subs. That should be enough time for them to set up production? They’ve done it almost everywhere else.

First, there is no proposal. There is a hypothetical, a brief mention we could discuss the Idea if we wanted. Second, the recent comments came from Jens Plötner who is the State Secretary for Armaments, Innovation and Cyber. He is not someone from TKMS.

There are a few problems with this Idea. It isnt like it wasnt explored, and the navy determined it wasnt in their best interest. Canada has never built subs, save the few H-Class back in the ancient times.

So the entire capability has to essentially be build from scratch. That includes the Infrastructure, people, if you don't want to be importing the majority of steel amd equipment than Industrial capacity, skills. That isnt a cheap nor easy thing to build up.

Second, the examples you're looking for of other yards that TKMS has worked with we're already well established, large yards active in large scale defence or commercial shipbuilding. Gölcük, Hyundai, Okpo… These aint small, inexperienced yards. Maybe of them also got started on smaller, less advanced subs during the eighties and nineties.

They aint nearly the advanced, complex beasts that the 212CD is. This is a far more complex design to build that a Type 209 or Type 214. No one wants a Hellenic Shipyard experience either.

Canada's three major yards (Davie, Seaspan, Irving) are already booked heabily into the 2040s. Irving and Seaspan also lack the major space for wide-scale expansion, which is limiting already, let alone if they need to massively expand to handle the construction of submarines and other things like the River-class, MPI, or Program Icebreakers.

Thats the other thing. Any of the major yards tackling this are likely to have to make sacrifices to other, equally important projects under their belt. Are you willing to sacrifice timelines for other projects to build subs?

The alternative is partnering with a smaller yard who might not have the experience that the larger yards have nor the Infrastructure or workforce. All of which will have to be, again, built up from scratch even more so than the big three.

That itself carries heavy risk of a new TKMS or smaller yard taking on such a major, complex construction without the resources or scale of the bigger yards backing them.

Let me put it like this. Would you trust Ontario Shipyards or Groupe Océan to build submarines? Would you trust them with making the Type 212CD? Because those are the types of yards just below the big three with the most potential.

And this isnt to bag on TKMS or their history of supporting foreign construction. It isnt them talking here. The 212CD though is a different beast, and will requires billions of Industrial and Infastructure support just to set up the facilities and supply chain necessary to tackle building them at home.

There will be delays. It is very likely we see delays in domestic production, pushing us out farther and farther into the 2050 timeline. If it took a decade to set everything up, thats negotiations, agreements, setting up the supply chain, the Infrastructure… The best timeline we could likely see for our first domestic sub would be 2042, at the absolute best.

Thats me being very fair and hopeful. That is taking six years to delivery from start of construction like the major yards do. This will very likely see delays, Issues, as is natural when working on a complex platform like this.

That gets further into the Capability vs. Development debate. Are we willing to sacrifice capabilities, push delays, and carry all that risk to build six submarines here? Are we willing to let the navy wait longer, spend exuberant amounts of money, and leave ourselves weaker to try and build a submarine production line?

Similarly I am never sold of promises reliant heavily on ‘export potential’ which is a lovely thing to say, but isnt simple in reality, especially talking twenty years from now. Are we gonna subsidize a potential fourth yard dedicated to building submarines if export orders dont come?

Even assuming the best case, that one of the big three takes this, the risk of busting on this is high unless carefully planned out, and even then the risk is ever present for a niche production line like submarines.

And thats even saying if that potential is worth it compared to what we're being offered. There is nothing wrong with having the submarines built outside Canada and then supporting them here. That also isnt a throw away capability to have, especially when talking about tech transfer, Land-Based Testing Facilities, Maintenance facilities on both coasts…

Sometimes you need to accept the 80% over the 100%. Sometimes the 80% works out better long-term, less money spent, less risk, higher chance of success for nearly the same benefit. This also isnt saying that either company could throw out better, alternative benefits not tied to defence, or exploiting other capabilities we have here.

This idea has been Investigated. It has been discussed. The conclusion has come back a no every time. It just doesn't pan out as easy and as beneficial as many want it to be.

The majority of people don't even really seem to care for the economic. Its a pride thing, to have a Canadian-built submarine, and I get that. However we need capabilities now. You can't preach urgency and then turn around and take a gambit like this that will inevitably lead to issues down the road.

I would love it. I would, but you can't chase everything, and this is something where the benefit of building them here just isnt worth all the potential Issues.

---

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