Happy Monday!
I hope everyone is doing well. I apologize for the delay by a day in getting last weeks Q&A out, and how short this one is. Being in Ottawa for the whole week last week got my entire flow and auch messed up. My zen has been disturbed, and unfortunately, it seems that coming home would not make the mews and workflow easier!
I will make it up to you all, promise. I am using today to get back into things, find my center after a row of long days last week. We have a lot of fun this week though. Black Hawks, Bases, and a lot of project updates!
As always, you can find the link to ask questions for next weeks Q&A over here on Slido!
Q1. Can you deep dive the pros and cons of a DCS for Blackhawks from Poland? Would it allow more freedom to do what we want with them overall?
Freedom in some areas, but only to a certain extent and not in the ways most people care for. The S-70i is, essentially, a Blackhawk stripped of all the specific equipment the US government supplies during production. Subsystems, comms equipment, etc.
There is a weird thing where people hear commercial and assume that means this is some civil version of the Blackhawk, but that is not the case. It is akin to a barebones Blackhawk with COTS systems designed to be replaced by the customer.
That means you could choose the cockpit and mission suite to your standard instead of taking the US Army’s standard aircraft. That in itself can be a level of freedom, as it would be our responsibility to equip them with whatever systems we desired.
Also, under a DCS, Canada negotiates warranty, data rights, who does the in-service support, and penalties directly with Lockorsky versus using the FMS system and Americans as an intermediary. That also provides freedom in negotiating, allowing us to come to an agreement directly.
What you don’t get is freedom from ITAR. The S-70i is a Blackhawk: same rotor, engine, etc. Physically, there is no difference. If your desire is freedom from American supply chains, you won’t get that no matter who you go to.
Same for building your configuration. If your configuration is not much different from the existing American, which in the Canadian context is something to consider, you don’t really gain anything from existing outside the American ecosystem.
There is also the case of support. You support your configuration, the subsystems used, the integration, and you negotiate the supply chain, including sustainment. As you can imagine, that in itself is a risk. You can still access the American supply chain, but you aren’t natively in it as you would be through an FMS. You don’t get to automatically benefit from that US Army supply chain that’s been built over the last 30+ years.
Negotiating sustainment also presents risk; see Cyclone, Griffon, etc. You are responsible for building that out directly with Lockorsky, and also take on the responsibilities if that ecosystem you built starts to fail for you.
One unmentioned benefit: relationship building. The Poles would undoubtedly love another S-70i order. It would be another major order on a book that is shrinking quickly. The Poles also have expectations of reciprocal defence collaboration: they buy from us, we buy from them. They expect the relationship to go both ways, which is why the idea of purchasing Polish equipment has been more a conversation over the summer.
So supporting Polish industry, especially an area they see as important, is a benefit for developing that relationship and showing we can be a supportive ally that helps not only our own DIB but can also support our allies.
FMS is easy. You get what you want, you know what you get out the box, you get in the American ecosystem, and you don’t need to worry about building everything. The platform works, supply chain is there. You get freedom with a DCS, but only as much as you’re willing to fight for, and what you’re willing to risk for it. It can be great, but it also means you’re building that capability for yourself.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it gets through the basic points.
Q2. Any news about the negotiations of the M-346?
Unfortunately, not recently. Last I heard, things were going good and on schedule, but that’s it. I try to avoid asking about contract negotiations because, one, it usually gets no answer and, two, it’s considered a bit rude to ask a question you know most people can’t answer.
So instead, you wait until someone decides to tell you, because what are you gonna do by that point? Can’t stop people from talking about stuff sometimes. People get excited, happens.
Q3. Is the reason why we haven’t gotten an announcement for the uplift UOR is because the choice is incredibly controversial?
I don’t think the choice will be controversial. I don’t know what people are thinking about, obviously, but I can’t see anyone in the field as overtly controversial in themselves. I’ll leave it there.
Q4. I haven’t seen a question about the F35 review lately...so...any updates?
This is going to be annoying, I know, but Minister McGuinty isn’t lying. It is ongoing and being worked on. They are still engaging with folks, still discussing things. There is no update because, right now, things have not shifted. It’s the same as it has always been.
Q5. Do you think the reason the Fighter Review isn’t out yet is because they want the F-35 but it’s politically inconvenient to announce that?
No. I don’t get that feeling. All indication I have seen among everyone I have talked with is that the Feds are legitimately still looking at their options and trying to see what is available and what is the best course of action.
In this case, I don’t think the Prime Minister (who is gonna hold last call) is aware of what he wants to do, so I don’t think there is even a choice to discuss.
Q6. Do you think Lockmart’s recent Canadian investments are a way to demonstrate to the GoC that they are a reliable partner?
It helps, but I think they have other ambitions beyond just getting good boy points. They seem intent on building specific ecosystems in Canada because they do have goals beyond fighters and helicopters here.
While those are valuable, we shouldn’t get in the trap of trying to fully interconnect anything. The company is building a UAS ecosystem in Canada, even if they aren’t saying it. Sadly, I need to be a good boy and shut up a bit, but you get the idea. That is another area that the company wants to compete and secure contracts in that is being pushed of its own volition, not to win favour.
There’s also just standard obligations that the company had to get out of the way. That in itself is also a motivator to sometimes get a few things out the door from time to time.
Q7. Any clearer picture for the future of the M777s? War stock, Ukraine? This is me spitballing, but strapped on the back of a truck for the res as SPGs?
The plan that I last saw, and I believe they ain’t set on this, mind you, is to ship them to Quebec, where they’re gonna be put in long-term storage as stock. That was the plan that the RCA was last sorta considering.
Keep them in storage as long as they can last; the M777 still has value as a portable, lightweight system where self-propelled platforms can’t get easy access to. Keep in mind, while that isn’t the kind of situation we expect, that doesn’t mean we might never be back in something like a mountainous environment where those benefits really start stacking.
So, for now, they get to stay.
Q8. DAME progress? When might we hear a decision?
If all goes well, we should hear by the end of the year. I’m under the impression the Army are ready to announce and move forward on it, but are waiting for everyone to align and such, and for things to be fully approved.
The caveat, of course, is that sometimes stuff gets hit in snags at the end, so, as always, once we start to hear of an award coming, tack on a few weeks extra for unexpected delays in the process.
Look at GBAD. That is also ready to go, but some snags are pushing out the announcement a few weeks from planned, then it gets hit by the holidays, so it’s then pushed out further because the holidays shut shit down for a few weeks.
End-of-the-year announcements are the worst. Happened to HIMARS, CMAR, etc. Hopefully, we hear it before Christmas.
Q9. In two Let’s Talks in a row you’ve been very gloomy about 2 Div - what have you heard that’s informing that?
I can’t speak to this fully, and I will respectfully say that there are some things that couldn’t or shouldn’t run through me. There is also, of course, more to stuff than we always know.
What I see is a lot of depressed folks, units dealing with upwards of 20% cuts to their operating budget, training days and exercises across the ARes cut, positions unfilled or scaled back.
I hear of fleet cuts that concern me from almost a dozen folks, which is not our normal. We hear concern about the future and if there will ever be a solid plan in place. I hear a lot of my friends struggling with an army that seems to forget they exist a lot of the times, and, rightfully, they believe they ain’t always being treated as part of the team.
All that at a literal golden age of spending and federal care, watching the money flow in but feeling cut off from it. That hurts folks.
Q10. Blackhawks from Poland are commercial spec and not military spec, correct? If so, how much extra would the CAF have to spend to get them up to military spec?
Common misconception. The commercial here does not mean these ain’t military helicopters. They are. Physically, they are the same as any other Blackhawk. As we said before, same engine, rotor, main subsystems. Mielec does have a civil version in the S-70M, but we’re looking at the 70i.
You could grab them off the lot if you wanted and do almost nothing to them to bring them up to a perfectly acceptable standard. The comms and radios used, if I am not mistaken, are COTS with the expectation that you’ll put in your own comms suite.
There are a few off-the-shelf commercial things in there, but if you wanted? They work perfectly fine out the factory. Of course, as we said before, most people will swap a lot out and build their own configurations, especially for guys like CANSOF; there will always be a desire to modify the airframes to some extent.
But don’t let commercial confuse you. These are still Blackhawks coming out the factory ready and equipped.
Q11. Do you know how GCAP talks are going on cooperation with the tier 2 companies? Or is Canada still looking and planning on if it should pursue GCAP or not still?
We are a GCAP observer, and no, we haven’t made a decision on acquiring or pursuing a deeper relationship than what we have now, which is about as basic as we can have it.
We have not seen, in our observation, the Federal Government talk deeper on industrial cooperation. Stuff like BAE and Bombardier was done on an industry level, which is where we stand to have access.
Right now, we are entitled to nothing; in fact, we are explicitly, on the federal side, pushed out of industrial participation by the existing agreement that divides up the work between the UK, Italy, and Japan.
While we can try and secure offset and industrial participation on an industry level, again like BAE and Bombardier, there are limits to our participation that come with coming in late to the process. That doesn’t stop encouragement, obviously, but right now we ain’t even at that stage. We need to decide if we’re fully serious about GCAP and a sixth-gen fighter.
Q12. Where would you place a brand new: Army base with training ranges for armour, RCAF base for fighters and cargo, and Navy base for subs and replenishment ships?
Oooo, interesting question. I think there’s a lot of different avenues you could go with these ones, with the caveat that I would likely choose to upgrade and expand on existing facilities over starting new in many cases.
And they have to be new? That’s a real kicker because it means I can’t cheat. There is also, I guess, some debate here on if I can stretch the rules to be a bit cheeky, like not counting the FOLs, but I feel you intended for them to be included as well.
If I had to choose for the Navy, I think another West Coast facility at Prince Rupert would be an interesting call as we look to a deeper Arctic presence. It is the closest major ice-free port on the West Coast, because the Port of Stewart is basically off the table.
Full base? More likely it would be like CFS St. John’s. Sydney also has some potential with the CCG alignment on Polar-class vessels if AMB ever moves through. Since AMB will likely be a strict East Coast fleet if it ever exists, aligning them with the future Polar-class fleet in Sydney is theoretically possible. You could maybe extend that to other vessels, but not likely.
New sub infrastructure is being proposed in Esquimalt, where they will be ripping out D-Jetty, and Wrights Cove in Dartmouth. In case anyone wanted specifics, because I don’t know if it’s really out there yet?
A new submarine facility is debatable in this context; I think the best cases for the Navy are above. There have been talks, and Vice-Admiral Topshee raised the idea before, of a new base in Quebec. There has been some push for that as a way to better tap into the Francophone population.
Army? I don’t think we need any more space for armour. We are not lacking large, open spaces. If I had to choose a new location? I think that a new base in BC, a centralized, major presence on our West Coast, would be an absolutely amazing thing to have back after the loss of Chilliwack.
Air Force I really struggle with. That I don’t fully know what I would do, honestly. That I might need more time lol.
Q13. What deviations will the MP and Utility variant have from the standard C&R LUV?
Physically, the MP is a C&R. The difference is the armament and the protection. The C&R has been asked to carry up to an HMG or mounted grenade launcher for recce and direct fire support. The MP’s traffic control and prisoner handling roles only call for a medium system.
The MP’s mission profile also asks for armoured protection, but unlike the C&R, the requirements we know don’t require any MPs to be armoured. Police-specific kit like lights, sirens or a detainee partition isn’t defined yet.
The Utility drops to two-seat config officially, has no weapons mount and gives up protection for payload, since it has to carry far more cargo than the combat vehicles. Its resupply role still calls for armour, but as with the MP, none are required to be armoured per the latest ITQ we know. The Utility will also be used for driver training, with two students and an instructor on board, which suggests it will end up seating three.
Q14. Do you know how the RCD Batch 1 design is going? Is it fully done/locked down yet? Idk if it is or not since there’s little changes sometimes.
Batch I passed Critical Design Review back in March. Final Design is currently scheduled for late 2028, but for the most part, the design, as is, is locked in. There are still small tweaks expected, but overall, the Navy has locked on the Batch I design ahead of 2028.
That doesn’t say they couldn’t hypothetically happen, but for all intents, bar something major, the design, as is, is what Batch I will look like.
Q15. With light armoured recce coming back into style, could GDLS ever produce Coyote/LAV-25s again? They’d be perfect if modernized.
General Dynamics out in Europe does have a 6x6 Piranha concept that Germans are procuring through the SpähFz NG project. That’s about the smallest GD has across the portfolio in the same sorta LAV family. It is still apparently quite big and heavy.
Really, I imagine a light recce platform in the modern context as cheaper, modular, and capable enough to be survivable. That fits along the line of a Senator more than anything (which should say how far we have come the last thirty years) with its STANAG 2B/3A protection, modular design, flexibility, and under ~10t weight class.
Cheap enough to be bought at scale, modular enough to be able to keep up with the modern scale and timelines of advancements in autonomous systems, EW, and sensors, and protected enough to be survivable. That fits the modern concept of light recce to me more than a 20+ ton LAV 6x6, which is about as light as GD is going in our context.
Q16. Any updates on the RCAF weapons package earlier this year?
Unfortunately, not all of it. We have moved on StormBreaker, which was contracted via FMS back in April. Other areas of the deal are notably quieter, though all expected to still move through.
Q17. Is CCG looking for new choppers for just the Polar Max ships? Or will MPI and Program Icebreakers get new ones as well? What size are they looking at, H145ish?
Well, the current Bells ain’t really that old, not at all, honestly. Right now, the focus is on a larger platform for the two Polars. There is no existing plan beyond those that I know of myself?
You can find the link to next weeks slido here!
Hey Noah, do you have a link to last week’s Q&A that you mentioned? I csnt seem to find it on your page. Thx!