Happy Thanksgiving!
We are late. I know, and I apologize (again). As you can imagine, it has been a busy week. I have also started aome new medication for my throat that I have not been doing well with, so that kinda ruined.my later half of the week. I'm all good now though!
We have an exciting edition this week. You guys REALLY wanna know more on MCAV! With LUV coming to a close, I wonder if it or IFM will be everyines big land project of interest? There is clearly some interest from both there.
Anywho, we have a lot of great questions this week, so don't let me hold us up!
As always, you can find the link to ask questions for next weeks Q&A over here on Slido!
Q1. The only MCAV that I think of that could do the best in our winters is CV90. Do you think the Lynx could do any better in our environment?
I mean, that would be objective to conditions, to which Lynx, as a fairly newish platform, has not had a chance to show how well it would do. Truthfully, MCAV is an expeditionary platform first. If you expect it to be in the Arctic, I got bad news.
Its ability to operate in the Canadian winter, as you put it, is dependent on how well the platform could operate in a sustained deep cold soak. How well does it hold up in deep snow and muskeg? Are its internal electronics rated for sustained -30+ temperatures?
All that we can’t really say, because, as I know it, Lynx has not been subjected as a platform to those conditions, and I don’t have the evidence to prove otherwise. So evidently, I can’t sit here and judge that hypothetical.
What I will say is that operating in our North favours lighter vehicles, with lower ground pressure. However, it does not bode well for almost any IFV or larger vehicle, really. Lack of proper infrastructure, inhospitable conditions, and lack of support or maintenance infrastructure universally punish larger platforms, no matter who they are.
Looking at some of the proposals for MCAV requirements, including up to STANAG VI protection, it really doesn’t matter what we get. No platform will perform well there, and operating in the general Canadian winter, the winter that most people are expectant of, is far less strenuous than operating in the North, where people often worry about winter conditions.
Keep in mind, again, domestic operations are not a primary concern for MCAV. It is the wrong platform for most domestic use cases, and so relegates its existence as a primarily expeditionary (and European) platform.
Q2. How viable is the E-7 anymore? It seems like a product Boeing is about to abandon fully once its current production slots are done.
E-7 is in a weird spot. It is a very capable platform and fits our requirements well, but it is an older system, with MESA being based off ‘90s-era requirements and early-2000s technologies. It is due for a very good refresh. Whether it uses GaAs still, I don’t know. I won’t speak to that.
Utilizing an older GaAs system in twenty years is bound to run into constraints when it comes to sourcing GaAs modules, especially as we transition to newer and more efficient modules like GaN at scale.
Of course, there have been issues with the E-7 fleet, historically and currently. The Republic of Korea has flown four E-7s since 2012 and has run into supply-chain obsolescence issues several times. The UK has ongoing issues, quite a few of their own making, so Boeing can’t fully take blame, but it is noted.
Australia is already looking at replacing its existing fleet through the AIR 7002 program, which will replace the current E-7 with a next-generation AEWC capability. Phase I of the program aims to “begin scoping and risk reduction studies, informing potential platform replacement and technology options,” with replacements to be delivered in the mid-2030s.
In the meantime, while Australia does plan to modernize the E-7 fleet through the AIR 5077 Phase 6 project, these upgrades do not appear to include modernizing core systems like the MESA radar. We do not yet know what an Australian replacement looks like, and whether that could be an ‘Advanced E-7’ or something else entirely. Even so, such a platform is still a decade out from delivery.
The USAF is also looking at the next generation of E-7. The Air Force’s Wedgetail Advanced Capabilities branch at Hanscom Air Force Base issued a solicitation a few monrhs ago on what a future E-7 might look like. The first American aircraft are being bought under a rapid prototyping program intended to cover the gaps caused by the “obsolescence and diminishing availability” of the current E-3 fleet. At this stage, the USAF does not intend to include emerging new capabilities currently being pursued.
Instead, a development phase would begin in 2027 with the intent to deliver two systems within seven years, after which the Air Force would decide whether to retrofit its existing aircraft, build new ones, or do both. The capabilities the USAF is looking to either modernize or outright replace include GPS alternatives for navigation, new electronic warfare countermeasures, communications upgrades, and a possible successor to the MESA radar itself.
The issue for Canada, again, is timing and uncertainty. An Air Force official said pursuing these capabilities would require a new program with its own development phase, not an upgrade path for existing E-7, and the solicitation raised the possibility of fitting these capabilities to a platform merely “equivalent” to the E-7, which is to say, possibly not an E-7. Canadian E-7s, if purchased baseline as they exist now, might not be able to benefit from these potential upgrades, if these upgrades end up leading to an ‘Advanced’ E-7 at all.
This program is also unfunded, and given the volatility of the E-7 program, being both cancelled and revived within the same year, the long-term future of the platform in USAF service is in contention. That is two of the major E-7 partners, and the two with requirements most similar to Canada’s, that are so far uncommitted to the future of the E-7 over the next decade. One is looking at its replacement, and the other is locked into a debate on whether to acquire a fleet entirely.
What Boeing has offered to Canada as it relates to the future of the platform is unknown to me. There is no national upgrade program that we could easily tag along with, nor has Boeing presented its own definitive future concept for the family for us to jump into. The risk of maintaining an increasingly obsolescent, orphan fleet of E-7s as our allies move on to newer and more capable systems is legitimate in this context.
This was a major concern the Feds had with E-7 and spiraled from there. That and cost was another one; so was concern from some that the E-7 was too large of a platform and we would have issues crewing the fleet. All of which were noted concerns among folks. Of course, this doesn’t mean the E-7 is a dead end, just that there is risk and uncertainty in the platform’s future that has people concerned.
I believe the Aussies will stick in the E-7 line or similar, as I believe the USAF will continue with the family’s development. Belief, though, is not commitment, and that commitment and the timelines we’re looking at for future E-7 developments pushed it out beyond what the DIA wanted.
Q3. Does MCAV include supporters like AEVs and ARVs, or will that be handled by the Leopard fleet?
Yes. The MCAV scope specifically includes looking into AEV, armoured maintenance/repair/recovery vehicles, bridge laying, armoured ambulances, command post vehicles, and other specialized armoured vehicles.
Keep in mind, scope, scale, and what ends up making the cut will all be determined as we move along the project process. What is funded, what is prioritized, and what quantity we look at are all subject to decisions in the future. The scope included things; what we get can easily change.
The numbers right now are ~250 cavalry vehicles, 12 command posts, 6 recovery, and 4 repair. That is very likely to change from now.
Keep in mind, the scope calls officially for up to two regiments for MCAV, as outlined in restructuring, and of that, the expectation is that regiments need to be able to provide their own Level 1 maintenance and vehicle recovery and operate independently for at least three days.
So yes, they are included in the scope, but beyond that, it’s still up to debate and work.
Q4. With the building of RCD going to the 2050s, is it planned that by the mid or late parts of the project, development of a new destroyer begin as replacement?
I mean, that would be how we allow for industry to have continuous experience in helping design, integrate, and build high-end combatants while ensuring that our major shipyards have significant work available to avoid potential busts. That’s how the NSS is structured to operate.
Whether that happens is up to future governments to decide and execute on. It isn’t an official plan in the books, even if it’s an expectation. That’s too far into the future to make a reasonable guess on.
Q5. Noah, what have you heard about Draganfly and investment in the company linked to the Trump crime syndicate? If this is true, the contract should be terminated.
I have been researching into this and talking around, but at this time, I’m electing to not speak on it until I discuss with everyone the situation and what’s going on. Sorry, this kinda stuff is very serious and not a topic I wanna gossip on in the Q&A.
Q6. For DAME, was something like Patria TrackX considered, or were they only looking at the split-chassis vehicles?
I mean, other options were explored, including platforms like the Sherp, but ultimately it was decided that an articulated vehicle best fit our requirements. By the time TrackX came to market, we had already settled on that.
Articulated vehicles are great for DAME, which, again, should be imagined as a utility platform. When you go in with that mentality, it makes more sense. The rear unit can be swapped or reconfigured as needed, including to cargo, ambulance, or command variants as we desire.
Weight is spread over two bodies, which keeps ground pressure low. That is (as we said above) another important factor for operating in our Arctic. Articulated vehicles usually keep traction in deep snow and muskeg better than two-track platforms like TrackX.
Imagine DAME more like LUV, or a pickup even. TrackX doesn’t really fit what we envision for DAME.
Q7. Low-key tinfoil hat question regarding Canadian Deep Precision Strike Capability: could this planned capability form part of a domestic defence contingency plan?
No, not if you’re speaking on defence against the Yanks. That isn’t in the factor. Domestic considerations are given, but more so as it relates to Arctic and coastal defence. I personally ain’t sold on that need, just as I was with Arctic HIMARS, but it’s there.
The need for cheap, expendable, domestic systems aligns with what’s in Inflection Point and the Army Warfighting Concept. There is an understanding that while HIMARS is capable and needed, it is still limited in numbers and might not be the ideal solution for every scenario. Cheaper strike systems fill those gaps and get us a replenishable capability to strike targets at distances beyond 500km+. That is part of maintaining a domestic deterrence and an ability to degrade adversarial capabilities.
There is nothing I have ever heard to speak about such systems being used down south, for those curious, and that isn’t in planning.
Q8. We know what Roshel is pitching for LUV—what is GM proposing? Some sort of ISV-H?
GM has proposed a Silverado HD–based package for LUV, pairing its commercial LUV with the hybrid NGTV-H, since rebranded as the ISV-H. The two share the same HD architecture as well as access to GM’s parts and dealer network.
The LUV is the more familiar of the two. It is a ‘militarized’ Silverado HD crew cab seating four or five, powered by GM’s 6.6L Duramax diesel V8 through an Allison 10-speed, with front and rear locking differentials. It has also been modified with a lift kit, larger tires, reworked rear end, and the option for an armoured crew compartment.
It is, essentially, a green Silverado. Whether we have exercised to go with this ‘militarized’ version of the Silverado in recent purchases, I don’t know. There are a few differences, but essentially, it is a Silverado.
The ISV-H is same family, different concept. It pairs a 2.8L Duramax, the same engine as the Infantry Squad Vehicle, with a 12-module, 102 kWh battery pack driving GMC Hummer EV–derived motors front and rear. That gives it silent drive, silent watch, and exportable power for sensors and counter-drone systems, along with multi-fuel capability, seating for up to six, and roughly 4,000 lb of payload. GM describes it as add-on armour capable rather than armoured.
It is also still a prototype, though, and a future offering to what Canada could acquire over an in-service, fielded platform. GM has dangled CAMI work as part of their offer to the federal government, but I have not been privy to those plans.
A big thing about LUV Phase II is the fact that we have bounced back and forth to what exactly we want. There is no agreed consensus to what LUV Phase II truly looks like among folks. Some want a Senator; some want something more like the GM/Roshel LUV because the Senator is seen by some as too big, heavy, etc. The Roshel LUV mainly exists to offer something more aligned to what some want out of LUV.
That is a matter of people’s preferences, though.
Q9. Is the RCN training any CCG personnel aboard their AOPS in preparation for the upcoming CCG AOPS vessels?
Yes. CCG personnel have been getting familiarized with the AOPS through collaboration with the RCN. Part of the recent trials with the 429 on Robert Hampton Gray, as an example, was preparing CCG personnel to operate a rotary capability on the AOPS.
This collaboration stretches back years, mind you. It doesn’t get talked about a lot, but it is definitely there!
Q10. Why hasn’t the Canadian government done a UOR on MCAV yet? The project needs to be fast-tracked.
UORs require money. UORs have rules, and UORs can make bigger projects’ lives difficult. UORs are not just a ‘buy thing quick’ strategy. They still need to define capabilities, go through the approval process, and get funding approved by the TB. They need to go through the regular stream of approval that all projects do. MCAV itself is unfunded and outside federal policy.
Then one has to ask if it is worth it. Do you really get capability delivered faster? MCAV wants to deliver in the next five years, if possible. Do you really wanna run a separate track at that same time that MIGHT deliver a year or two ahead?
Keep in mind, that budget competes with the main project’s own funding. That is a concern that one has to consider when talking about this stuff. The project itself isn’t fast-tracked.
You just carve out a secondary quick requirement that is limited, often comes at self-compromise, and then you have the added concern about fairness, which, yes, is an issue. Doing a UOR makes it harder to procure a wider capability because now you have the burden of bias to prove you’re being fair to other companies in the wider competition.
UORs can be a great tool. They have a lot of benefit. In cases like these? They need to be weighed with their risks involved. Is a UOR the best use of time and money? Or is trying to get the main project on time and to its full extent?
Q11. Are the Navy dazzle or war paint schemes just for show, or are there studies detailing their effectiveness and supporting the change?
It’s a commemoration of our past. The Navy is a very historical institution. They love their history and want to do things to celebrate it while keeping a distinct Canadian feel to what we do. The Navy is full of nerds, to say the least.
Now, funny enough, I did have a talk with someone recently about dazzle camouflage and its effectiveness against autonomous systems. There is apparently some research put into the effects of it on AI-targeting and pattern recognition software.
I have not fully dived deep into that topic of learning, nor have I seen the evidence in full, but some people do believe it still has some utility in that department. For us, though, it is a historical thing.
Q12. Sorry for bothering, but do you have any clue when the RFI for CDC is? If not, then oh well.
The Navy still wants it out this year. Whether they get that depends on how things align. You gotta go through approvals, get past TB, etc. I think there’s still a chance we get it this year, but there have been several projects really pushed back by shifting priorities and getting through the gridlock.
Q13. Is the plan for the RCN to only get 6 S-100 Peregrines? Is that enough, if correct? Will we get the S-300?
The proper designation is the CU-179 Peregrine now that they are entering service. It is for up to six systems; we have not exercised our options yet, so we are currently, officially contracted for two, as outlined by RCN ISTAR.
Keep in mind, as we have talked about, the RCN is undergoing a massive expansion of autonomous systems. That includes new UAS, some of which will be bound for the Halifax-class as well.
That expansion will likely include more S-100, but it will also include a number of cheaper, more expendable systems that will be built up through programs like DDI. Does that include the S-300? Maybe. We will have to see. It could fit JMMU, but we don’t know exactly what’s desired out of it yet.
Q14. Weird sub question, but do you know why the S-80 Plus and French sub didn’t pass capability for RCN?
There have been no official answers, and I wanna get that out first. There was a desire to limit the field, and from some you might hear that’s the primary reason why. I have heard reasons, primarily related to timelines.
Navantia promised a first boat by 2033, but Cartagena has only one active line, and the delays to the existing S-80 fleet had concerns. Same with the ongoing struggle to get the AIP working.
To credit, Spain is undertaking a major program to build an indigenous bioethanol reformer that should be celebrated. That’s a major feat on them, and I don’t judge their struggles as a simple failure.
Cherbourg is also running at tight capacity, and there were concerns about Naval being able to deliver in the timeline set. Naval also seemed to have only fleeting interest in CPSP, and differed quite a bit on things.
Officially, I can’t say how the Navy judged both officially as it came to requirements. No one met the original requirements in full, so that isn’t on them. The big concern was on timelines and delivery, as well as the risk of platforms. That’s what I can say.
Q15. Another sub question: why did we choose the Type 212CD regular variant and not the blue-ocean-going E variant?
The regular 212CD is ocean-going. Its range and endurance actually ain’t that different from the KSS-III. Don’t mistake a submarine optimized for operations in littoral environments (even that is a bit of a misuse) for a coastal submarine designed to stay at home.
Keep in mind, both platforms met our requirements handily. Both have ranges beyond 8,000nm and submerged endurance beyond four weeks. Cut out the VLS, and the size difference between the two is minimal, with the KSS-III being a few metres bigger.
That matters, though, when talking habitability, space for fuel stores and batteries, etc. While the KSS-III likely edges out a notable bit, it isn’t some significant, double-digit number. If you’re concerned with ocean-going capability on the 212CD, you also need to be concerned about the KSS-III, or any diesel-electric submarine.
Could the extra range and endurance of the E be valuable? 100%, absolutely. That isn’t a question. That doesn’t mean the 212CD is limited to Canadian waters nor unable to transit large distances.
Q16. If/when the RCAF replaces the Cyclone, will they be repurposed in a different role, or will they be buried in the ground and the RCAF forgets they ever existed?
Likely, they will end up being stripped for parts and such before being scrapped. I would like to see at least one or two saved, though, for preservation reasons, but that is a future thing. There are still valuable components and modern equipment on the Cyclone that have value being used elsewhere or sold off, but as platforms, they would very likely be done.
Q17. Will the DAME vehicles finally be armed?
Still not in the plan, but that could change as their priorities do.
Q18. Has there been any movement or rumours on CDSEA?
CDSEA is still early; like, it’s a new project. It’s still trying to identify what it wants to be and what exactly we need. I wouldn’t expect much movement for a long while.
Right now, we’re still in the same spot, seeing what’s on the market, what allies are doing, and seeing what an RCAF EW capability looks like in the future. Is it a Global? Autonomous systems? Upgrades to existing platforms? New munitions? Or some mix of all of them?
We’re still in that process of figuring that out right now.
Q19. Do you know when the RFP for MCAV is?
As of now? No. I don’t know the exact dates. The RFP is officially slated for 2030, with contract award in 2031–32 and deliveries in 2033–35. There is a heavy push to get it out sooner, and MCAV is now considered a priority project in the Army.
Some people wanna get it out next year, but that is out of the CAF’s hands. That is up to the Feds and such to decide. MCAV is not in policy and unfunded. That can change with the upcoming DPU, if it is a funding document, but right now we have a vague 2027–2030 timeline.
Q20. So Roshel is not getting any LUV contracts, huh? Is that what I’m reading?!
No. There is still the actual G-Wagon replacement still in contention. That is still fair game to Roshel or GM.
You can find the link to next weeks slido here!
Is it just me or does it sound like GM Defense is selling something completely unsuited to be in potential combat zones on one hand or complete vapourware in the other? What a joke.
I dislike how people automatically think any narrative involving a tracked AFV platform and cold weather environments think the CV90 is the only solution on the market. The ASCOD, the same platform that’s used by the Austrians and Spaniards, same platform that has newer versions like Ajax and Booker, have all been either gone through a test or evaluation in cold weather conditions.
And if you’re gonna come after me saying “Not ArCtIc conditions” you can literally find photos and videos online of US Army testing, evaluating, and operating the M10 Booker in Alaska during the Winter.