Let's talk with Noah (12/01/25): MEDCAV, RCAF Modernization, Golden Dome, Technology Stuff.
Happy Monday!
Apologies for the late post. It's been a very busy day, and I still have a party to attend! So let's not waste time with my usual ramblings. We got questions to answer!
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. Do you have any sources in the RCAC that can speak to what medcav is actually supposed to do? Light tank? Div recce?
I want to emphasize that as of now MEDCAV is still in the early Identification stage. That means that a lot of whats wanted is still being discussed and Investigated. We are still a ways away from disvussing hard requirements.
However we do already have an Idea on what roles are desired from a Medium Cavalry vehicle in any regards. We are talking about a vehicle rhat can perform Recce in Force, Attack by Fore and Mobile Defence against a peer adversary.
Truthfully even the definitions I have seen used are fairly vague and open to interpretation on what Medium Cavalry is. We know that the tasks above are some of the primary differentiators between it and Light Cavalry.
I have seen weight, protection and forepower used as vague differentiators, and in speaking to others the last few months I have heard a variety of opinions to what exactly this looks like.
Is it a medium tank like the CV90120? Is it something like a tracked IFV? Or is it an evolution of thr LAV6 platform? To that I can't answer. I think right now there is a lot of debate going on internally about just this topic. I think it's to early to tell exactly what that final product looks like.
That open definition might be a good thing though. It gives a mandate for exploration and having some deep discussions on what we want to be able to do and what oir gaps are. It gives the conversation some room to have deep debate. That makes peojects like this a lot more fun to me.
Q2. What are some capabilities Canada should have relating to the military or look into procuring for the future?
Well I just talked about cables yesterday and all the things we should acquire lol. The truth I often tell people is that if there's something you want, chances are there’s already a project for it. We have dozens of Major Capital Projects in the works. That covers a lot of the wishlist that many people would have.
I mean we have projects for Airborne Early-Warning Aircraft, Ground-Based Air Defence, XLUUV, Corvettes, Medium Cavalry vehicles as we discussed above, Light Utility Vehicles, a complete revitilization of the RCA. The list goes on and on.
Out of the things that we aren't planning that I would like to see? Obviously Sealift is one of them I talk about a lot. I would also like to see us jump on the Global airframe to really build out our support fleet.
If we are destined to get a Global-based AEWC we might as well start discussing over uses for the platform like Electronic Warfare, ISR, Battlefield Communications. Any number of concepts exist amongst our allies, and I would love to see it really dived into.
I would also like to see more progress on studying dor Large Uncrewed Surface Vessels. Im far more skeptical on them than most, however I do feel the concept is worth investigating at the least. I see no reason we shouldn't at least give a glancing eye.
Those are three at least that aint on the books that I think have some merit in looking at!
Q3. Is the F-35 purchase enough to modernize the RCAF, or do we need more acquisitions soon after?
No the CF-35A isnt enough. Lucky for us though it is far from the only project that is in the works. Infact, of all the services, the RCAF os best positioned for modernizing before 2030 thanks to the fact that it has managed to quickly knock off most of it's major projects in one block between 2022 and 2023.
On top of that we also have the 14 CP-8A Posideon coming in 2027, same with the first converted CC-330 Husky of which 9 are being procured. The year afterwards the CQ-9B will start delivery. The FACT program is preparing to deliver dozens of new aircraft split over multiple fleets. The CC-295 Kingfisher has reached IOC….
So within the next two years well over a hundred nee aircraft will start being delivered or already in service, the largest recapitalization in decades. That's on top of other programs in the works. A new trainer should be selected soon as part of the Future Fighter Lead-In Trainer project.
The Airborne Early-Warning and Control Aircraft project is also moving ahead. The RCAF has billions of dollars in space-related projects on the docket, and somehow convinced ghe government to get their precious Sovereign Launch Initiative off the ground. Integrated Air and Missile Defence is also being explored now, including the long pushed against role of having a kinetic BMD capability.
New Air-to-Air missiles, new Long-Range Strike capabilities. You would be hard pressed to say, of all thr services, the Air Force before thr fighter review was absolutely the winner of the game. They've gotten almost everything they've wanted, and got it at a time where defence was still a very sensitive topic to the public.
These aren't just replacements either. Its hard to understate just how much capability we're getting. Take the Husky fleet. With it we will quadruple the tanker fleet from two to eight. The Husky can care over 25% more fuel for refueling than the Polaris. It operates both the traditional hose-and-drogue system and, for a Canadian first, a boom refueling system. That boom is required for refueling platforms like the CP-8A and CF-35A.
We're talking a near 400% increase in refueling capacity, not even discussing that the Husky will have a significant cargo capacity (up to 45 tonnes) on top of its Refueling capabilities. That can be rapidly configured for things like personnel transport, cargo, or medical evaluation.
Point here is that one platform alone isnt going to fundamentally change anything. The good thing js that not only are we getting replacements for just about everything, but those replacements also represent major capability increases in themselves compare that what they'rereplacing. It isnt 1:1.
Q4. Do you think that the River Class or the CDC will have any export opportunities?
I mean River-class isnt really ours to export here. Even if we were to stack it, it's highly unlikely many future Type 26 operators, assuming there are many past Norway now would go with our exact configuration. That leaves the Continental Defence Corvette, which I think depending on how it looks in the end could have some export potential.
New Zealand is one I think we could potentially advertise to, Chile maybe. Both of them are already part of the CMS-330 club. Its natural that we extend that to trying to export our designs to them. The Chilean Icebreaker Almirante Viel is a Vard design if you didn't know!
Beyond those two I can't say. CDC is looking to be a very specific and tailored platform. That is always a drag when it comes to exporting abroad. Not many people need an Ice-strengthened corvette and those that do are likely to favor their own designs.
Q5. How prepared is Canada for a high-intensity conflict compared to European NATO members?
We aren't. Simple as that. Our key fleets struggle to maintain servicability above 60%, we are not adequately stockpiled in terms of munitions, parts, and equipment to sustain the demands a modern peer condlict will bring, Industry is far from being on the footing to rapidly scale up products of critical materials and systems (assuming we make them), we have no Sealift capability to rapidly ferry significant forces or equipment to Europe, and we are only now getting new equipment like the RBS70 and SPIKE to Latvia, but not the army as a whole.
However many of our allies are in the same position as us. Progress does not happen overnight, and we are setting ourselves on a much better path to be ready to tackle these issues. I dont mean to potentially sound gloomy. It is important to acknowledge these current deficits and that we aren't where we need to be.
Its also good to acknowledge that we are making the steps in that right direction. We have money coming in, thats the first step. We have reform coming, we will see how that works out. We still need to speed up timelines. We still need to wait and see how the Defence Industrial Strategy pans out in details.
We also have another study on the Munition Supply Program ongoing. That to me is actually one of the most important areas of reform and discussion. The current monopolistic order of the MSP hinders competitions, restricts the Industries ability to scale production, and presents a natural limit to outsiders willing to see up production here.
Everyone wants domestic munition production. Everyone talks about being the ‘Arsenal' for our alloes. Yet that doesn't happen when the current MSP, comvined with the tremendous amount of regulations and red tape continues to artificially limit our capacity and discourage companies like Kongsberg and Hanwha, two companies who have discussed this, from jumping in.
Australia made a whole agency in the Australian Missile Corporation to handle attracting manufacturing. Thats the kind of commitment we need if we want to be in the conversation.
So no, we aren't ready. We are making progress and thats good but it's far from enough.
Q6. What’s one emerging technology Canada should invest in now to avoid being obsolete by 2035?
Quantum and AI technologies. Thats two, I know but both are rapidly advancing at a pace that will be hard.to catch up domestically if we don't invest the time and money into now. Of course not all Quantum technologies are created equal. There is a lot of focus on Quantum Computing, which fair but I'm more interested in things like Quantum Sensing.
Quantum sensing uses individual atoms as measuring tools instead of mechanical parts or microchips. The idea is basically by monitoring how those trapped atoms shift, usually by freezing them, you get a measurement that is thousands of times more accurate than standard equipment. Like switching from a camera to a microscope.
There has been decades of research into Quantum sensing, and many failures, however revent research, especially aome of the stuff and studies coming out of China is incredibly Interesting to me. Interesting enough that I believe its not just about researching how to develop such systems, but also how to counter them in the future.
There is work being done. Canada does do some decent funding into Quantum technologies. We re.ain a leader in the area of Quantum Computing. This is an area we aint quite up to though that I would like to see more of.
Q7. Any interest from Canadian government for hypersonic missiles?
As in hypersonic missiles or hypersonic defence? For hypersonics we don't have a specific program, lots of missiles can be hypersonic depending on how you define it. Our North Strong and Free sets out each service to have a Long-Range, Precision Strike capability to their own.
In there is no direct mention or requirements for hypersonic weapons. Platforms like HIMARS could have hypersonic options in the fututre, but it again isnt something specifically desires. We are Investigating hypersonic defence though! That has been set out as a major priority as part of NORAD Modernization.
North Vector Dynamics was awarded a four-year, $4.2- million contract a few months ago to study hypersonic propulsion systems, primarily for test vehicles and hypersonic defence purposes. There is research being done, however there is also a lack of proper testing facilities related to hypersonic propulsion.
That would also need to be built up, and it's something I hope someone takes the Initative on. So fret not! There is work being done, just not on the biggest scale.
Q8. Should Canada invest in long-range strike (e.g., missiles or bombers) or stick to defensive posture only?
See above. We are already investing in new Long-Range Strike capabilities. Our North Strong and Free outlines this commitment:
We will acquire long-range capabili- ties for the Canadian Army. These missiles will be deployed to enable our forces to shoot at greater ranges than our adversaries in combat. We also commit to providing the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force with the striking power they need to deter threats at an appropri- ate distance, and will explore options to acquire long-range air- and sea-launched missiles.
In practice we already know what this looks like. The army will be receiving HIMARS in 2029 along with PRSM. This will give the army, with future increments of PRSM, the ability to strike targets both on land and at sea at distances out past 800km.
The River-class Destroyer will be equipped with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, and the RFP for the Canadian Patrol Submarine asks for both suppliers to present options for Long-Range Strike missiles specifically for land-attack.
Lastly the RCAF has plans to acquire both LRASM and Joint Strike Missile for the CP-8A and CF-35A respecticely in the future, assuming that Integration goes smoothly.
So to answer your question, yes we should!
Q09. Is Canada still capable of sustained overseas operations like Afghanistan?
See Q5 for similar thoughts. I will add to this that such an operation likely means sacrificing resources in Latvia. That takes up a lot of our current efforts and availability already. To try and perform a second mission of similar or greater scale? We couldn't at this time.
If Latvia was out of the question and we were again part of a wider coalition? Sure. We might wven be able to do such work on a much smaller scale than Afghanistan, but not to that level.
Q10. Should Canada become the gun store of the Europe? We build everything for them. We have the land, the resources? Thoughts?
Also see Q5 and my discussions on the Munition Supply Program. The same there applies here. Its a great idea, but there are several major legal, regulatory, and policy hurdles we would have to get theough first before we could even begin to have those conversations.
Q11. Golden Dome?? How serious is Canada about it, heard some buzz when it first came up then nothing after??
There are preliminary discussions. Canada is working on it's own Integrated Air and Missile Defence strategy under the ‘Canadian Shield’ banner, which is far cooler than using dome for everything. Golden Dome, Steel Dome, Michelangelo Dome? Lame. Those names suck.
Its very likely though, as has been figured out, that what we are looking at is likely to match up to what Golden Dome is broadly looking for. That might mean we don't participate in everything, and maybe we do things a bit differently.
No matter what any Canadian IAMD will be integrated into NORAD. We will always be working in that framework. Interception is out of NORADs juristiction. That falls on USNORTHCOM. As of now that also means that Continental defence from an Interception standpoint falls out of Canadian purview.
There is recognition that this is a chance to rectify some of that, and we are now discussing the avquisition of Ground-Based Interceptors for that role. That is also likely going to be a U.S. system for ease of Integration and supply.
So its not so much we are jumping fully in to Golden Dome, rather we recognize that there exists a lot of alignment in both our concepts and it's beneficial to work together to achieve mutual goals.
Q12. Has there been any discussion regarding transfer of the two AOPS building for the CCG to the RCN?
No. Deapite what you might hear, CCGS Donjek amd CCGS Sermilik will play an important role in supporting North Atlantic Fisheries Organization operations replacing Cape Roger and Cygnus. Their edition will be a major leap in capability for the CCG and there is no desire to ditch them to the navy.
Q13. Why do Canada and the RCN prefer surface ships over submarines, as stated by Dr. Paul Mitchell in the podcast? Aren't submarines superior?
Thats a long answer that I'm actually writing a longer post on lol. I'll give the basic rundown, historically Canada has struggled to procure submarines for a variety of reasons. For much of their history, submarines were viewed more as a teaining tool comparied to an avtual capability.
Keep in mind also the reputation that submarines, especially to the Canadian public, had coming out of the Second World War. In the immediate post war it was always going to be a hard sell to the public that these often villified platforms could be used.
Then of course Submarines are expensive. We've always tried to procure submarines. Almost every decade has some attempt to either procure or exoand upon existing fleets, primarily the Oberon. However submarines are also expensive, and were quick to be on the chopping block once the financial hammer came down.
It's actually a very long, very fascinating story. Its one that I am in the middle of writing after all! So you won't have to wait to long for a large response to this lol.
Q14. Where does CDN. Defence tech innovation sit with allies? Top, middle, bottom?Can our govt. prevent CDN. defence tech sale to others
To assign a ranking? I would say middle. Canada has a lot of areas where we do really well on, like Autonomous technologies, Unmanned Systems, Training Systems, Quantum Computing and even Artificial Intelligence to many degrees.
Major companies like Rheinmetall, Kongsberg Geospatial, CAE, Lockheed Canada, and Safran all maintain Canada as the forefront of their software and digital systems development. Canada ia a digital powerhouse in many regards, pumping out software, C5ISR systems, simulators, navigation systems, amd so much more.
We have a lot to offer, far more than I can spout in a single Q&A post. Our allies recognize our value. I hear about it from foreign companies almost every day lol. I promise you I will make a proper post on this soon! And I plan to launch something really cool, really soon regarding highlighting a lot of these companies.
As for your second question? Under the EIPA, all exports of military and strategic goods and technology specified on the Export Control List (ECL) require a permit issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Let's Talk is proudly supported by
dominion-dynamics.com
Dominion Dynamics is developing Canada's next-generation Arctic command layer, unifying sensors, autonomous systems, and operators across all domains into a single real-time operating picture. Their energy- efficient, low-latency C2 architecture is purpose-built for extreme northern conditions and fully interoperable with both legacy and future systems, strengthening sovereign capabilities, improving joint decision-making, and enabling adaptable, integrated defence and security operations across Canada's Arctic.
You mentioned new Air to Air missiles. Is the Meteor a candidate or are we talking farther in the future?