Happy Monday!

After a very tough wekend, it's time to return to our regular scheduled programming. While I know many of you are still hurting snd processing all that happened, let this be something to take your mind off things.

This week is more relaxed. It seems nTACS is back on the discussion list! 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. Noah, on X you talked about other “GlobalEye moments” ahead for the CAF. Can you share what kind of projects you think might get that treatment from the PMO?

Not fully; that’s also a grey area for our policies. I wasn’t trying to tease any specific project was coming with that choice. There has obviously been talk about what COULD happen, but as I know it, no choices to pull that off have been made.

What has been settled is that the method works, and it can be done. Even with some backlash, the benefit to those making those choices far outstrips the negative reaction. Even if not intended, that is a mandate to many that it’s an option on the table for what makes sense.

Look also at the various Space Projects, like ESCP-P, which was also pushed ahead and given to a Strategic Partnership over going through the tender process. That one faced almost no public backlash at all. I do believe that there are other such moments ahead, and they have been talked about, but I can’t say what exact projects might be on that list at this moment. I don’t think it stops at GlobalEye; far from it. I think they’re emboldened to use all the tools available in that sense.

Q2. Any news or rumors on the Griffon helicopter replacement?

The nTACS team is still working hard on engagement. There are further talks about if other existing projects outside the nTACS scope could be folded into it, but that’s fairly gossip over a proper rumor and such.

nTACS was supposed to release its RFI months and months ago, but things got delayed for a few reasons out of their control (and no, it wasn’t financial, as I know it), so they’re a bit behind. It’s sorta in a hold period: ready to go, but waiting for the signal to move ahead and start the tendering process.

Q3. With the Hanwha K9MH being selected by the US Army to replace the M777, do you see that giving the system a boost for Canadian selection?

It 100% helps to have someone else on the mobile variant. That would be true no matter who acquired it. The K9 doesn’t need to really prove itself in the field, nor is it lacking customers.

Taking that, especially as the MH is based on the newer A2, and turning it into a proper module system is a massive feat, one that shouldn’t be discounted in the effort it took to do so. It gives a chance to showcase both the system’s capabilities as a working capability while also providing a show of confidence.

IFM is weird. The system desired has shifted, and so has the background. No one denied what the RCA was targeting. They never hid it, but the K9MH gets very, very close to the AGM, and that makes it a very tempting choice for many, especially as money crunches come down from folks like the TB.

Being able to showcase a working prototype and get the nod of our closest partner, and one who seems to really like the system, is a major shift in the landscape that does bring it into contention more than it was three months ago.

Q4. What is happening with nTACS given the political climate and the fact that Lockorsky and Bell are from the US? Does this bode well for Leonardo and Airbus?

Not really much. It isn’t that companies like Lockorsky or Boeing will be excluded, certainly not Bell. The Feds consider Bell a major Aerospace company and a national gem. They certainly ain’t getting pushed out of anything on nTACS.

The Blackhawk stuff was specifically the question of sole-sourcing, not of American participation as a whole. What the Feds want, though, is domestic capability. nTACS has a very broad mandate to secure Industrial investment, so to speak. There is an expectation that we will push heavily for platforms to be produced in Canada.

Airbus has Fort Erie, but it isn’t a full end-to-end manufacturing facility. They are very interested in doing more in Canada, though, and are, as I know, open to domestic production. Leonardo is also open to it. I have not heard Lockorsky’s or Boeing’s full plans yet.

Bell obviously is best set to produce here, but they ain’t doing the MV-75 here, and their full plan is still not fully known to me. They have started working to integrate Canadian Industry into the MV-75 supply chain, though, including folks like CAE. Keep in mind, we have no RFI, and things are still very early. No one is gonna be showcasing their full plans at this time until they get an idea of what’s desired.

What I also think is likely is that this is competing not just on nTACS, but on a broader Strategic Partnership that could, and likely will, lead to orders across the Federal ecosystem beyond nTACS. That raises the stakes for many quite a bit.

That isn’t in anything, mind you; that is some Noah speculation on the expectations, but I could very much see it.

Q5. I’ve heard that 17 Wing Winnipeg is building its own 10+ MW substation for future projects. Any insight into what those projects may be?

I can’t speak fully to this, sorry. What I can say is that Winnipeg is undertaking a lot of major projects where additional capacity will be needed.

There is, of course, the electrification push, as well as upgrades needed to support FaCT. There are, of course, base infrastructure projects as well, as part of ongoing greening and net-zero mandates, but there are also things like the Future Combined Aerospace Operations Centre Capability project.

That project will modernize the Canadian Combined Air Operations Centre with a new, advanced, defended airpower C2 system that will utilize modern cloud computing and machine learning systems to aid in quicker, more decisive decision-making as part of our NORAD commitments.

I can’t say exactly where that capacity goes in an itemized list; however, there is a lot going on across the board, and power capacity remains a large bottleneck for most facilities that needs to be resolved.

Q6. Why doesn’t the DND replace its vehicle fleet gradually each year, like the RCMP, rather than replacing everything at once? This would spread out costs.

Like some sort of continuous procurement? A continuous system to acquire capabilities, perhaps mixed in with incremental upgrades and modifications on a yearly basis? A Continuous Capability Sustainment program...

Okay, I jest a bit, I’m sorry; but yeah, there is so much advocacy for this, so many people screaming into the heavens for incremental purchases and refreshes. If Mark shows up here, he actually has graphs.

This isn’t a strange concept. The CCS Initiative is a legit thing, and the concept of implementing Agile methodology in the procurement system is often talked about by many. There is a great report out there from Philippe Lagassé, Alex Rudolph, and Alex McPhail on the concept of Agile procurement that I highly recommend tracking down, as I can’t link it here.

The problem comes down to the usual suspects. The Federal government, historically, has not given its mandate or support in such an effort, nor has there been a financial commitment to fund such a program. Lack of desire on the part of the Federal government essentially shuts this down from the start.

That is shifting, though. ACV-W is looking to utilize this model of procurement: incremental upgrades, set yearly purchases, and long-term commitments to GDLSC to keep the LAV fleet modern and refreshed. I wouldn’t be shocked also to see projects like LUV take a similar approach in the future, though right now, that’s outside its scope.

This is a model we want, everyone wants, to utilize. It’s just, until recently, it didn’t have support from the people who would make that a reality. That is shifting, slowly, but still shifting to where we can trial and experiment with the concept.

Q7. Any movement on acquiring large underwater drones like the Guardian AUV?

That falls under the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System, which will procure dedicated XLUUV like the Cellula Robotics Guardian AUV. These will be the primary runners for the Navy in the Arctic, in theory. They will be able to traverse under the ice, in areas where larger platforms like the Canadian Patrol Submarine will not operate.

They will be long-range, long-endurance platforms that will loiter for weeks at a time across the Archipelago. From them, projects like the Canadian Arctic Suite of Sensors will procure things like AUV, rapidly deployable sensors, and other such payloads that could be deployed across the Archipelago.

That could include barrier systems: lines of sensors resting at the critical channels of the Archipelago that sit in wait for something to cross it. It could be smaller UUV with various sensors or payloads of their own. That is in support of the RCN Bastion and Net strategy.

These XLUUV would be deployable from assets like the AOPS or future icebreakers. It is highly likely we see the CCG participate in this as well, as the future icebreaker fleet could also support the deployment, recovery, and maintenance of future autonomous systems.

Those systems, though, are still a time out. The timeline shifts a bit depending on who you ask, but we’re targeting the early 2030s to have an initial capability in that area operating.

Q8. Is there anything about acquiring the 5.56 “drone” round that the USMC is getting?

It exists as a conversation. I have yet to see it in any official plans or such, but when it comes to CUAS, nothing right now is off the table.

Everything is being considered and explored. We ain’t excluding things when we’re just trying to build up a national capacity; that includes the conversation of how we make existing platforms more effective in the CUAS role.

Whether things are procured? I can’t say at this stage, but folks are keeping the doors open.

Q9. Are there any mitigation plans for the MilCOTS MSVS self-divesting? The “so-called” Defence of Canada Div will have a hard time in DomOps without any cargo vehs.

Well, we do 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. Keep in mind that self-divestment isn’t a one-and-gone kinda deal; the whole fleet doesn’t just get retired one day. What it looks like is gradual, incremental divestment as platforms become too expensive to maintain and operate.

Right now, there are plans for certain fleets like the MilCOTS to start that process, where incrementally the fleet is divested both as a cost-saving measure, but also because, frankly, good parts of the fleet are just too far past their service life.

As for the future? We have stuff on the books, and that’s about it. When it comes to ARes stuff, things are weird, undefined, and sadly in a holding state. I can’t tell you, as much as it saddens me, what the future looks like, because I don’t think the Army really knows, or has the proper plan in place themselves to say.

Q10. How are things looking for our GBAD concept?

So, we get this a lot, and I think it’s good to use this to repost both a history as well as an update. We did an updated history a few months ago that bears repeating.

The Canadian Army has had a GBAD project on the books since 2017. That has now since evolved into what is essentially a ‘UOR’ as of last year. Not to be confused with the OTHER air defence UOR that ended up procuring the RBS 70 NG; that was a separate procurement.

That OG GBAD itself was always a bit of a contentious project. The project itself was a holdover from the GWOT era. Its primary focus was on things like C-RAM, while also desiring a capacity for short-range air defence against things like cruise missiles, low-flying aircraft, etc.

Needless to say, there were a few issues.

Once the war in Ukraine kicked off, priorities started to shift as we realized that perhaps a C-RAM-focused system was not the most needed. Keep in mind, at this time, we were also starting to scale up our presence in Latvia.

So, there was a recognition that our lack of any GBAD capabilities was a major hindrance, and a further recognition that we needed a layered approach to our air defence. Keep in mind, GBAD, as it existed, was always a major piss-off to a lot of companies, who found the requirements convoluted and, depending on who you ask, a bit biased to certain people.

I won’t get into it here, because I have talked about it a lot, including in a whole article! This did make an issue, though... We needed more than what GBAD was asking, but we also couldn’t afford to just restart the whole process.

That’s where Enduring Phase II and III come in. Those are actual GBAD projects, focused on acquiring a SHORAD/VSHORAD system for the wider Army. That would be a battery each under current plans, but I expect it to be expanded.

Again, the GBAD project was instead moved into focusing on supporting MNB-L as Uplift.

That is currently out on RFP. The Army is hoping for IOC there in November 2027 at the latest. Enduring would come with Phase II in 2029 and Phase III in 2030, so long as everything went to plan. There are talks of moving it up, and the plan is still for Uplift to have a contract by the end of the year. End of November was the date a few weeks ago, but I have a feeling it might miss it.

Remember also that GBAD is a priority project for the Army. If they can speed those timelines up, they will.

Medium, long-range, and land-based GBAD is currently the domain of the RCAF, who has initiated an IAMD study to better conceptualize what a Canadian IAMD network looks like. It is not a project in itself, but an ever-evolving list of capabilities and projects unified under one banner.

That study is ongoing, as the concept of IAMD is not a unified concept, but instead a series of individual capabilities all coming together. That includes the Over-the-Horizon Radars, AEGIS and SPY-7, NWS Mod, etc.

As we reported, I believe last week or two weeks ago, the IAMD is currently engaging with allies on their own Long-Range Air Defence systems and Industrial capacity. Hopefully, in the coming year, we get a better look at the vision.

Q11. Any chance the Axon contract has been signed yet?

Hello, Axon Guy. I was wondering where you were. Unfortunately, I have nothing for you at this time! I will look for you, though.

Q12. With the commonality requirements for MCAV/HDFI and the CV90’s Arctic and European qualifications, would the CV90120 be heavy enough to qualify for the HDFI?

Well, as always, an RFI is a solicitation to Industry; it is not a formal declaration of requirements, so keep that in mind. Right now, we are leaving things open. There is enough ambiguity in the RFI that you could sneak in a Medium Tank concept and make it fit.

That does require, specifically of protection, that the Army accept potential alternative solutions to traditional methods of defeating heavy direct fires, such as through signature management and APS.

There are honestly three tracks here, and the lines in all of them are a bit blurry. We have MCAV as a platform, a requested Direct Fire variant of MCAV that could fit the Medium Tank Concept, and HDFM.

With the proposed changes to the RFI for MCAV (bumping up to STANAG VI, reemphasizing the Direct Fire variant) and the openness of HDFM, we are reaching a state of overlap and general intermix on everything. Add on the commonality information requested in the RFI, and I would say that things right now are open.

There is a desire for a full Main Battle Tank. That hasn’t changed, but a supplement or alternative is also clearly being written into the concept from the get-go. That choice will be on the Army and folks like the TB in the future.

Q13. Ignoring the political aspects, do you foresee the RCAF getting assets like the B-21, or sticking with jets like GCAP, which are similar to the F-111 in size?

No, and not on you, but I’m gonna give a little mention to this. The RCAF is already undergoing its largest recapitalization in history. We are looking to add over 400 new airframes in the next decade; almost the entire RCAF will be replaced by 2035.

That includes new capabilities we have never had before, or have divested over the years and need to establish, such as an EW Wing, RPAS Operators, a native AEWC capacity, and an IAMD capacity. That includes pilots, technicians, operators, etc. We are establishing a new Security trade in the RCAF, trying to build fifth- and sixth-generation capable infrastructure.

All of that, mind you, with an RCAF that is significantly smaller than it was in the past, playing catch-up just to support the capabilities we have coming, and still trying to fill out new capabilities like CDSEA and potentially multiple fighter fleets.

The capacity for other platforms is very quickly shrinking. Our ability to onboard new platforms and capabilities is hitting a critical point; I don’t know how much more it could support. Keep in mind, Raider is a capability we don’t really need.

The F-35 will have all the Strike Capacity we need, along with, potentially, GCAP, which, as you say, is already pushing the limits of size and capabilities in a fighter platform for us. I don’t see the use case for Raider, and in a strained RCAF, I don’t think it is remotely where we need to spend limited currency.

Q14. With the leak of the Blackhawk purchase being put on hold, is there talk of another helo being selected, or will they have to tender for basically Blackhawks?

See our article here for a big rundown. Right now, I debate the worth of running a Phase I competition in the current climate. If we did run one, it is very likely, with the current requirements, that we fall again on Blackhawk. It was chosen for a reason; in spite of what some media says, it wasn’t just CANSOFCOM crying they needed American.

Blackhawk fit their requirements better than anything else, in the timelines we requested. Running a competition either just delays it, or becomes redundant if we decide to purposely work against a Blackhawk choice.

Q15. Do you think when the Canadian representatives went to Korea, did they see the new hypersonic missile launch? Or was it strictly for GBAD?

I can’t say myself. Yes, no, maybe? If they did, I haven’t heard about it.

Q16. You mentioned the Army might divest TAPV, LUV-W, and MSVS. What replaces them, and how would the Army absorb losing 1,000+ vehicles? LUV ain’t an MRAP/cargo truck.

As we said above, fleet divestment doesn’t come at once; it is, in itself, an incremental process. What replaces them? I wish I could tell you. I don’t know. I don’t know if anyone really knows right now. I wish I had more to give, but sadly, that just looks to be the current situation. No one knows what happens other than hoping a solution shows up.

Q17. Is the plan to only have one-ish submarine until the new ones arrive? What is the status of the other three?

Chicoutimi is done. She will very likely never sail again and will remain as a training platform, and as a platform for cannibalization of certain critical parts. Both Victoria and Windsor are in Deep Maintenance, with Windsor due back before the end of the decade and Victoria in the early 2030s.

The Victoria-class are expected to remain in service into the mid-2030s. Babcock was recently awarded a six-year extension to the existing Victoria In-Service Support Contract (VISSC) to support that.

As part of that, the Vickys will also serve as transition platforms to the future Canadian Patrol Submarine. All three will incrementally receive the Vicky Mod upgrades, including new EW fits, a new bow sonar array, new digital periscopes from Safran, and a new Air Monitoring System, among others.

Part of this will be to provide the RCN with a modern undersea capability, but will also help provide some experience operating modern undersea systems ahead of the delivery of the first Canadian Patrol Submarine.

Hope this little rundown helps!

Q18. Is there any talk of a European vehicle manufacturer, I’m thinking Scania Defence Solutions perhaps, looking to build a relationship here?

Yes, but it isn’t Scania; it’s Tatra. That’s all I will say at this time.

Q19. I understand the CDC project is currently in the options analysis phase, pending RFI. Could you describe the likely phases and timelines for the next few years?

The official timeline plan is for an RFI, hopefully this year; RFP in 2030; contract in 2031; and IOC in 2039, with FOC out all the way in 2050. That is the official timeline, and the one that is being stuck to.

If we can get them sooner? Awesome, fantastic. Do we get one by 2030? Absolutely not, unless your definition is a bare hull with nothing installed. That’s about three years from now, with no funding, no policy, and not even an RFI released.

We could maybe rush five years with shortcuts. We could maybe get hulls if we go foreign, which goes against a lot of the Pax Canadiana in CDC that forms the core philosophy. Right now, CDC timelines push delivery through the 2040s, and that is what the Navy is currently sticking with until something changes in policy.

Q20. Is nTACS put on hold?

No. RFI delayed? Yes. On hold? Absolutely not. It is already in policy with funding committed, and is seen as a major project by almost everyone. It ain’t on hold.

Q21. With Germany looking for options on a Global 8000, do you think it could be looked at for a CDSEA concept if Germany committed? Not a guaranteed option, but looked at.

Maybe. I like to say that anything is on the table until it is not. No one likes to be first, mind you. No one wants to be the one taking the risk and paying the cost until someone determines it’s worth it.

Bombardier isn’t pushing the 8000 for defence. It isn’t a priority, as the 6500 is already established, has a wide support chain, in some cases fits better on SWaP, is easier to modify, and fits almost everyone’s needs. The extra capability on the 8000 in range and such isn’t really needed in 99% of cases.

So, the 6500 remains the easy, affordable, workable choice for most cases. If someone else does that work for us? Then sure, maybe. We likely won’t put that effort into it ourselves, though.

Q22. You said the Type 212CD is blue-ocean capable, but from what I heard, its submerged displacement is only 2,800 tons. Is that correct? If so, is it enough?

2,800 tonnes submerged is the commonly cited number, but that doesn’t paint any sort of picture on if a platform is ‘Blue-Water’ capable. How far a sub can go and how often it has to snort is dependent on several factors that tonnage alone can’t tell you.

Range and endurance come down to two things, really: how much energy a submarine carries and how fast it burns through it. For the KSS-III and Type 212CD, there are three main sources of power all feeding into it: diesel generators for transits and recharging the battery; the battery for running dived, including bursts of speed and escape; and hydrogen and oxygen, which the fuel cells turn into electricity for slow, quiet running on station.

I’m, like, really generalizing here, and I know I am, but the key point is that all three are critical to a submarine’s transit range, submerged endurance, time-on-station, etc.

If you wanna go deeper? Diesel stores; what type of battery system it uses and its capabilities; available hydrogen and oxygen stores for the fuel cells; and hotel load (the constant power drawn by sensors, combat systems, and life support) are all individual factors that play a role in calculating these numbers. How long a patrol can actually last also depends on consumables like food, crew habitability, and the platform’s ability to maintain itself away from dedicated infrastructure.

In this case, with any submarine, you’re trusting the manufacturer. No one is telling you the available hydrogen and oxygen stores in their submarines; in many cases, that is classified information. For the 212CD, we also don’t have numbers on the battery system.

A larger submarine also doesn’t mean more endurance or range is bought automatically either. A bigger hull takes more power to push through the water, so part of any extra energy it carries in stores just goes into moving the extra size. That extra volume also has to be spent on something, and it isn’t always going to be on stores.

On the KSS-III, for example, some of it goes to the VLS, crew space, and munitions. Bigger boats also tend to run bigger hotel loads, so more systems, more people, and more to power, whether the boat is moving or not.

I should do a deep dive on this topic; I should have before, because it is important.

You can find the link to next weeks slido here!

Let's Talk with Noah (10/19/26): nTACS, K9MH…