Let's Talk with Noah (12/15/25): More Cyclones, Drones, What Replaces the Twotter?, NOSH
Happy Monday!
It's another week. For some reason I felt really off writing this, so I apologize if it might not be up to our usual. I dont know, my brain has been off this weekend. I think im developing a head cold or something. It was still a fun week of questions! Not as long as last week, lol.
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 reason why only the Global 6500 seems to be discussed for military conversion and not one of the bigger siblings?
These days, it's mainly because the work has been done. Things have been certified, and it's been proven to be a highly modular, versatile platform that has the capacity to fit a lot of sensors and equipment for its size. The 7000/8000 are not so easy. The composite material that they use for the fuselage is apparently much harder to modify safely and isn't worth the investment to do so.
Another funny thing is that, if I am not mistaken, the Global 6500 actually has more excess electrical capacity compared to the 8000. For the more modern, digitally native 8000, that means less excess. Both have 4x40 kVA generators. You could likely take advantage of the Passport engines on the 8000 if you wanted to try and fit larger generators, but at base, it’s the same.
Historically, the Global Express family works great because they remain a popular option commercially. That means that spare parts were plentiful, people had experience working on them, and the global supply chain was already built out. Again, it's also a testament to their capabilities. It and the G550 are similar there.
The 6500 remains the premier choice also because, honestly, it does what most people want anyway. You gotta ask if the extra range and speed that, say, an 8000 offers is worth the effort to invest into compared to it, and often times it just isn't.
If something offers more than enough, there is little reason to go fancier and more boutique just for the sake of it. Keep in mind you need to reintegrate and recertify everything on the 8000, which is a major cost burden to whoever would choose so.
So not only is it extremely difficult for the other Globals to be modified, apparently, but you also gotta ask if you need more than a 6500 and if you do, if the other Globals are somehow gonna be that extra step above. 99.9% of the time the answer is no. The usual answer is we move up to the 737-class of aircraft. That middle between them and the 6500 is sadly not of much value at the end of the day to be justified.
Q2. Has the Ajax issue brought up any concern about GDLS with regard to MEDCAV, IFM and other projects, and generally about GDLS as a company?
Not really? It might have killed Ajax for MEDCAV, and maybe makes some people turn heads, but the truth is that GDLS-C and GDELS for most people are two separate companies. This is kinda the thing when talking about subsidiaries and such. Depending on who they are, you really are dealing with a subsidiary in name only.
If you tell someone at Lockheed Martin Canada, as an example, that they ain't a Canadian company, you're liable to catch hands. They don't see themselves as anything but Canadian. They have little day-to-day connection to their American counterpart.
GDLS-C is like that. They are essentially different organizations, and many people, including decision-makers, take that sort of stance that these companies are fundamentally different. Different leadership, cultures, capabilities, etc. The interpersonal interaction can oftentimes be very minimal.
So while some might look at GDLS-C and think negatively because of what GDELS has done with Ajax, the vast majority of those in charge will not. They'll see it as unfortunate, might raise some concern, but very likely move on from things.
People recognize the history that they personally have, and if their relationship with someone like a GDLS-C or LockMart Canada is good and thriving? They'll work off that over what's going on in a branch of the company that is essentially 90% unrelated.
This will kill Ajax, sure. It's garbage by this point. However, that doesn't kill GDLS-C as a whole, and you'll see that when the newsletter drops. I know many people don't have this mentality, and I know this might seem weird to some outside the circle—certainly, I'm outside the industry. The defence industry is weird and complex, and I don't always understand it.
I can understand this though, to an extent as someone on the outside, and I get why this mentality and this way of thinking exists. At the end of the day, GDLS-C is mostly its own enterprise and operates fairly independently of its larger owner and its European cousin. You can't implant the culture and mentalities of one on the other.
GDELS does deserve to be burned to ash though from top to bottom for this mess.
Q3. With Victoria-class decommissioning in the mid-2030s, have you heard about new shipbreaking sites in Canada or NATO countries for broader NATO ship demo needs?
Yes actually! British Columbia’s Look West strategy released just a few weeks ago talked up a regional recycling industry as a major goal of its Maritime development strategy. Newfoundland Marine Recycling is a newer company looking at the possibility of setting up a recycling centre at the old Bull Arm fabrication site.
R.J. MacIsaac Construction, fun fact, was certified last year as the first Canadian company to meet the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships. The Alberni Valley has launched a new Ship Recycling Leadership Group looking at potentially bringing recycling to Port Alberni. That comes as BC Ferries is looking to prioritize local options for future recycling, starting with Bowen Queen and Powell River Queen.
So yes, there is a surprising amount of work being done privately, and with significant backing from provincial governments! There is less noise federally, but it's not really their area to fully tackle the nitty-gritty. Provinces have far more of a role to play, and far more need to be involved in the process overall.
As for the CCG and RCN, I have heard the idea thrown out as a want-to-have, but it's obviously something outside their purview to act upon. The situation with Union Bay and Baynes Sound has also put some pressure for more federal involvement in ship recycling this year.
I know MP Gord Johns of Courtenay-Alberni has been very vocal and active on the idea of federal standards for recycling. A lot of work is going on in BC right now, but there is work on both coasts and recognition from everyone that there is huge demand for more capacity. So things ain't moving exactly, but the foundation of expansion is there and healthy at the least!
Q4. Does the RCAF have a preferred aircraft in mind to replace the CH-148?
Anything that isn't Cyclone. Doesn't matter what so long as we can service it and it can work. There is a lot of love for MH-60 Romeos. They're available, use a lot of similar equipment to the Cyclone, they work, they fly, there is at least some form of offer from LockMart on the table for them, and they could be delivered quick.
I don't like the idea of rewarding someone after they spend years leading us into a crisis; however, a helicopter that can fly is better than one that can't. It's as simple as that. Merlin is obviously what most want, and it shares some advantages in already being tailored to the future River-class, sharing North Atlantic commonality with the UK and Norway, and commonality with the Cormorant fleet.
However, delivery for them is slower, and there are systems and equipment we would apparently want that would need to be integrated. It could be a long-term solution, but it isn't the immediate "we might end up looking for." There is also a desire to see what NTACS does, and where it sort of falls with the wider Rotary fleet.
Right now, Maritime helicopters are not part of its mandate, however, it could be a major influence on a future choice depending on what they get. That would still be over a decade out though. We might need something in the next five or so, depending on who you believe when it comes to the state of the Cyclone fleet.
So preferred option is a strong word. It's what's available that matters most. We want something that works. That evidently isn't Cyclone. It's no longer about what's nice to have, or the perfect solution. We are past that stage.
Q5. What strategic partnerships do you know of?
This is a very broad question—like so broad it could apply to a bunch of different things. Strategic Partnerships can mean militarily, economically, commercial, financial, public health related, etc.
I usually always try to answer to some degree; however, for this one might I ask for a bit more clarification? It will help me narrow down the info you're seeking to know! I don't wanna accidentally go off on a tangent on the wrong topic and disappoint.
Q6. Any indication as to when the Canadian Army Modernization Order will be released?
If you're in the CAF you should already be able to see mostly everything. Publicly, for the rest of us, we should be getting something really soon. No idea on dates or exactly when. I can safely say that if you follow me, you likely have most of the basics already available.
It'll come out when they feel it's ready. There has been a general slow-roll of various Components/Initiatives going on leading to CAMO being dropped. I don't think you have to wait long.
Q7. Is Vard updating their Vigilance design to meet the new CDC requirements?
I can't say. Vard does not respond well to my emails! I'm sure they are—kinda their big advertisement was how well they are at tailoring designs to customer requirements and their skills at bringing bespoke, unique requirements to life. If the change of requirements between March and now killed them, then I have some serious questions.
So the answer is probably, yeah. I hope they are. If they ain't, then I think we need to do a wellness check on them. Vigilance has gone through several redesigns and is now expanding into a proper family. That includes the 75, 100, and a few smaller variants. Maybe they go larger? I don't know. Vard kinda does what they want, and they have a tendency to pull concepts out of a hat—kinda like Davies but not as radical.
Really the Vigilance 100 likely gets 90% of what's desired still, although because no one has released any hard numbers we can only guess as to what these vessels' capabilities are.
Q8. I have read we don't have enough Cyclones. Will we purchase more or retire them early and replace them with a different aircraft, or just go without?
See question #4. LockMart has allegedly presented a plan that would see the Cyclones phased out for Seahawks. We can't afford to not have an ASW Helicopter. It's a vital part of the ship's ASW suite, and one of the only tools it really has to actually go and pursue an opposing submarine, no offense to Lightweight Torpedoes. That's a different talk though.
I am not privy to that deal though; however, you need to remember that everyone is losing on the Cyclone right now. LockMart is losing hundreds of millions on the project. Canada is without a reliable Maritime Helicopter, which for a navy that has prided itself since the 1950s on maintaining an ASW speciality is downright life-threatening for a multitude of different reasons.
Right now, there is analysis being done as to what the future of the fleet will be. The Cyclones are expected to last into the 2040s. All Cyclones are expected to be in Block 2.1 configuration by the end of next year. However, the recent grounding for many is a sort of last straw where they no longer see the fleet as reliable enough to just ‘make work.’
So right now, the future is up in the air. There is nothing confirmed, and there is no one saying it's going to happen. If Vice-Admiral Topshee had his way, they would probably all be soda cans by now. If you asked the folks in Winnipeg, they would probably tell you they want anything that works properly. The truth, however, is that the final decision rests on government. They need to make that move.
Q9. With the increased attention in the arctic, does the RCAF have plans to increase its dedicated arctic aircraft fleet beyond the 4 Twin Otters?
The Twin Otter Replacement project was put on hold about three years ago. The original idea was to replace them with new-builts; however, the plans shifted as the current Twin Otters apparently have some issues operating in the Arctic, especially when it comes to their electronics.
That isn't the only reason. There was also a desire to step back and examine what other options might be available. One popular option is to use the Bell MV-75, formerly the Valor, in that role. That tied a bit into NTACS which is also looking at whether Valor could play a role in the future of tactical aviation in Canada.
Compared to a Twin Otter, a MV-75 has greater range (1,040nm standard for Twotter 400 versus 2100nm for MV-75), far higher top speed (170-182 knots for Twotter 400 versus 300 knots for MV-75) and a higher payload capacity (over twice the capacity of Twotter 400) even if we don't count the additional 10,000lb sling capacity that the MV-75 offers.
It's a tiltrotor that maintains a similar footprint to a Blackhawk. It could hypothetically land just about anywhere a Blackhawk could, even in isolated, enclosed areas. It doesn't require a runway, which is a very nice benefit for isolated communities or areas up North that might lack that infrastructure.
And if you're thinking, especially now, of an Arctic response aircraft that can land in isolated communities, be versatile and with a high payload capacity, have the ability to cross vast distances without refueling—as fuel and supplies are a very precious commodity up north. You can't get fuel everywhere, and if you can, you need to both maintain that supply and ensure you aren't jeopardizing the communities you're taking from.
If you want a rapid response capability, the ability to respond to potential crises up north—be that SAR, environmental response, or HADR in a timely manner—then you want something that is fast, something that can respond quickly on top of having that great range and payload to traverse around the Arctic.
Now the issue here is that the MV-75 only exists as a prototype. It isn't in service yet. It is still being developed, and despite some good words, I don't believe in any tiltrotor until it is in service and has proven itself. Yes, I am very skeptical on Tiltrotors. I always will be.
So I don't want you to think I'm advocating for any platform. It's a complex question. Operating up north is difficult, and while it is easy to try and fall back on proven options, I do think some investigation and questioning is good. I do think we should take a broader look at what is available and what could be useful.
If that's a Twotter? Great. I love the Twotter, and it's proven. It's more of the same, but that isn't a bad thing. However, if they determine that they want to take the risk on something like Valor, where you get that capability boost and potentially a larger fleet on top? Then I'll be worried for a while, I'll be skeptical; however, I will accept it because I can understand with the capabilities it offers on paper why people would be willing to take that risk.
That's what it is. It is a major risk to us to put our trust in a new, unproven platform that leverages what is still a very rare and ‘boutique’ technology like a tiltrotor, especially after the long history that the Osprey has had. However, if everything works as advertised, and the MV-75 works perfectly fine in the Arctic conditions, then yeah, it would be an amazing capability to have.
Q10. Are DND/CAF planning to further develop/expand the Nanisivik facility beyond its current limited refueling capabilities?
Not at this time. The fact is that we'll get what we get with Nanisivik. We won't be spending billions more to get it up to the original standard, at least not at this time. The difficulty, the time-consuming nature of construction in the Arctic, and the rising cost of upgrading the facilities make it prohibited to doing more there.
We have better luck looking for alternatives, either by leveraging commercial facilities up there, like the many mines, or future facilities like Grays Bay. The fact is that there are few locations in the Canadian Arctic that remain viable to us as dedicated facilities. The few that people do mention, like Iqaluit, all have their own disadvantages that hinder them.
Funny enough, we're likely better off expanding our presence in Nuuk over anything. That's likely where the cheapest, easiest option exists.
Q11. With all the emphasis on growing Canadian defense companies, has the government planned any protection from acquisition by US or other foreign companies?
Not specifically to the defence industry, if that's what you mean. Outside the existing anti-trust system and such, there has been no real effort to secure Canadian control of certain companies and IP outside specific cases. While the Federal Government has influenced such decisions, and have made efforts to be more involved, such as in the Anglo-Teck merger and securing Canadian control in Telesat when it was sold to Loral Space & Communications.
I can actually understand the concern here, not just in purchases but also in losing IP when Canadian companies falter. Canada has no real banking system when it comes to these things. There is no way to secure Intellectual Property when a company goes out of business.
Oftentimes the technology and assets these companies developed either gets sold, usually to foreign companies, for pennies on the dollar or they vanish and fade into the endless nothing. There is no system in place to secure access to these IPs and make them available.
You would be shocked how much is lost that way, how much work and development are lost because a company fizzled out and took all their work with them. It's one reason I support, especially for a fledgling defence industry like Canada, having an IP bank available so that companies or individuals who might otherwise abandon their IP have a resource to make it available for wider use and distribution should they choose.
It would not only secure a lot of those IPs domestically, but could become a great, open-source resource especially for SME to utilize when working on their own products and solutions. It essentially becomes a catalog of previous work specifically tailored to the Canadian defence industry.
Some food for thought. It comes to individual government action. If the Federals want to step up? They certainly could. They have. However, it is very situational and often there is no desire to step in. Outside those rare cases, then it falls on existing laws to handle.
Q12. Will there be any attempt to speed up delivery of the RCD by Irving?
The current plan is to eventually deliver one River-class every year and a half—more like every 15/16 months. That is the schedule lol. There is limited room for expansion in Halifax beyond what's planned. Irving's Halifax yard is already undergoing a massive expansion as is.
That includes a new OmniLift Shiplift that will be the largest in the Americas when finished, upgrading their existing Assembly and Module Hall facilities, and awarding a new contract last year for the construction of a new Paint and Blast facility.
One thing to remember is that scheduling here is a balance. We want ships fast, yes, however, we also want to make sure that all three of the major yards have a continuous build cycle, shuffling between projects. We want to avoid the Boom-Bust cycle of Canadian shipbuilding that has inflicted us since Micmac.
That means that we need to balance the timelines so we don't, hypothetically, build too quickly and then have these massive time gaps between work. You lose institutional knowledge and your skilled workforce very quickly when your yard isn't working.
Within five years you have already shed most of the skilled workers that you had available to you as they move into more stable work. After a decade, most of the institutional knowledge when it comes to shipbuilding, especially warships, is long gone—either left for greener pastures, retired, or too out of date with the times to be effective on a wider scale.
It comes quick, that atrophy. That's why the NSS is set as it is. It balances the need for delivery with the carefully planned cycles of work that each shipyard is expecting to receive to avoid losing skilled workers and institutional knowledge.
Is it a bit of a sigh? Yeah. Everyone wants ships faster. However, having a working, viable shipbuilding industry is also important. It's a strategic asset that we need to have, and sadly their needs don't always align. It's a balancing act, a very tough one that sadly has to exist to make sure we can have both.
Q13. How much of future warfare will be drone-based, considering current conflicts like Russia vs Ukraine that use drones prominently?
Drones are tools. They will become a fairly common tool in the future; however, they will remain another asset in the arsenal. One thing I always like to note, you shouldn't assume that a future peer conflict will look exactly like Ukraine. You can't just juxtapose their situation onto us. There are rapid changes occurring, and new technologies that are becoming more prolific, but you should always take into context the current environment, and the limitations Ukraine currently has.
Drones will be a major part of the future arsenal. I highly recommend that you read our report from last week on the Minerva Initiative if you want an idea of what we're planning. Ukraine is in a position where drones, especially cheap FPV that many people discuss, are oftentimes used in place of other assets like artillery and ATGM. The efficiency of those FPV attack drones is heavily contested. The Swedish Defence Research Institute has a good report on their use. I know you didn't specifically ask about them, however, I feel the need to bring it up because of the Ukraine message.
Drones will become prolific. Drones will supplement and likely overtake certain capabilities. The problem is that many people assume that these will be things like Loitering Munitions replacing ATGM, when the actual likely candidates are things like Tethered Drones replacing traditional systems like communication masts, or more so heavily supplementing them. Same with Drones for things like ISR and Recce. They will likely heavily supplement if not replace a lot of traditional systems. I already hear about it with the looming death of LRSS and the discussions on if Tethered drones are at the stage where they could replace the capabilities they offer.
Drones will be prevalent. At the section level you will see individuals employing drones at scale. The battlespace will be full of them, from individuals using smaller quadcopters for ISR, Tethered Drones acting as Communication nodes for dispersed bases, and of course, you will see an increased presence of strike drones and Loitering Munitions that give sections an independent, Medium-Range strike capability beyond ATGM, but not replacing them. They supplement.
That's the key word in all this. I don't subscribe that cheap drones will fundamentally dominate the battlefield. I don't think many do. I do believe that CUAS systems, both Kinetic and Non-Kinetic, will become prolific enough and catch up to the point that they will shift the balance against those cheap systems.
They obviously won't go away, but people expecting that a bunch of FPV are going to turn a conflict with Russia, to me, are taking the wrong lessons from Ukraine in believing that these systems will always maintain the advantage, and are at the stage that they can fundamentally shift the tide of a battle in the long-term.
We are not Ukraine. We should not assume that their situation will be ours. It can be if we don't prepare and equip ourselves properly mind you. You always need to be prepared to be in that situation. However, with all the effort going into CUAS, and again the prolific acquisition across NATO of these systems, I do believe we will get to an equalization point sooner than later.
Q14. What are your thoughts on the drone mothership concept for commanding and deploying multiple drones in sea, air, or land, similar to what China is developing?
See, if you read the post before this you might think I'm not a big drone guy lol. I am actually very bullish on Autonomous Systems as a whole. I think there will be a future where almost every platform is in some way a ‘mothership’ for various Autonomous systems of various sizes.
You can already see that if you watch around enough. Almost every platform, especially in the Air Force and Navy, will be performing some sort of Manned-Unmanned Teaming. The River-class, CDC, and AOPS will all be employing unmanned systems to some degree.
That includes in systems like the Remote Minehunting and Disposal Systems, various Unmanned Aerial Systems for ISTAR, logistics support, and potentially limited support for tasks like ASW (think carrying Sonobuoys). It will include Unmanned Underwater Systems of various sizes, from small platforms for ISR, subsea monitoring, and again Minehunting to larger XLUUV that could be deployed and work as collaborative partners from places like the Mission Bay of a River-class.
Every class of vessel in the navy will maintain its own dedicated UAS. That's the plan. We are already experimenting with employing USV in various configurations, and I expect that will be expanded across all vessels. That's before we start talking about MUSV and LUSV.
The F-35 will eventually employ Close Collaborative Aircraft as partners. Same with platforms like AEWC. The P-8 is also likely to get some form of effectors that can be launched in support of various tasks. There is an ongoing MAD UAV prototype project that aims to provide the P-8 a Magnetic Anomaly Detection capability through the use of an integrated UAS.
Future LAV will likely have Autonomous Systems baked into the platform, both in a strike role through the use of Loitering Munitions and the employment of dedicated drones, usually tethered for things like ISR. We have already seen GDLS-C experiment with those concepts with the LAV 6 MKII.
So my expectation is that almost anything will be able to be employed in that mothership role to various degrees, to the point I ask if we need dedicated mothership platforms, or whether we specifically are better off optimizing the assets we have to better perform that role, a role they are already leaning heavily into.
Q15. Contract announcements for the River class refer to "the first three". Why is that? Will they be considered "block one". Are there ideas for "block 2"?
You can consider the first three, Fraser, Saint-Laurent, and Mackenzie as Batch I of the River-class. There are fifteen planned total, however, we don't order all fifteen at the same time. We do things in batches!
The next Batch will hopefully be for six vessels; that's the desire of the navy at least. It's unlikely this batch will be overtly different from the first. We will hopefully see the integration of some previously cut technologies and Canadian content, like SeaSpider, Safran's NGDS decoy system, and LockMart Canada’s RAVEN ESM system. All things I was excited to see that sadly got shelved for Batch I.
There is a desire to up the VLS count to at least 32 and beyond if possible. However, I don't know if the next Batch will have that. It isn't as simple as merely installing cells, as we previously discussed a few weeks ago. You should read that as I go into depth there. Vice-Admiral Topshee has said before he would like to see 48 cells without touching the Mission Bay, that will be a tough ask.
Right now we don't know what the next Batch looks like. We just signed a contract for the first this year! We are still a ways off from knowing what can be done, and what the navy is potentially prioritizing for the next Batch.
That's one of those "time will tell" answers that everyone hates but sadly is true in this case.
Q16. Have you got any updated info on the army's artillery plans?
At this point, no. There has been little movement on Indirect Fire Modernization since the RFI dropped. We should see a proper RFP in the next year, however, I don't have timelines. Right now effort is being put on getting that RFP ready. The Canadian Army wants deliveries starting in 2030/2031. That is a very quick timeline for us, so priorities will be focused on getting through the necessary steps in the procurement process to match that.
Q17. Is there any thought about expanding current installations or new bases in the Arctic for a more capable presence besides all the talk about Churchill?
Yes! As part of Our North, Strong and Free, Canada has set out $2.67 billion over 20 years to upgrade Canada’s network of Forward Operating Locations in the Arctic to full Northern Operational Support Hubs. As of now Iqaluit, Inuvik, and Yellowknife have been announced as locations with Rankin Inlet joining them… eventually…
Below them will be Northern Operational Support Nodes (NOSN). These facilities will be either permanent or dispersed sites that have the infrastructure in place to act as a forward operating base (FOB) to a sub-unit-sized Joint Task Force (JTF) or detached element for a minimum of 30 days.
There will also be new investments in transportation infrastructure to help connect these nodes and hubs together. This might come from investments made under the new Arctic Infrastructure Fund, a $1 Billion dollar financial instrument announced as part of Budget 2025 to help support dual-use infrastructure developments in the Arctic.
That could include new projects like the Grays Bay Port, itself a cornerstone of the wider Arctic Security Corridor that will link Southern Canada to the Northwest Passage through both Grays Bay and a new 550 mile (900 km) all-season road that will connect the port to Yellowknife, and in turn the Yellowknife Highway to Alberta.
While primarily commercial in nature, the corridor will act as another branch to which we can build out other connections, and in turn help to mitigate some of the stress currently inflicting the Territories, who are dealing not only with a slow collapse of the existing Ice Road network but also a major crisis with the Mackenzie River. Something that you can read about here, and something I will keep bringing up until someone attempts to do something.
So there is actually quite a lot being done! The Arctic Security Corridor has already been marked as a project of potential by the Major Projects Office, so it has at least some people in government backing it. I always say that there's a lot going on, we just don't really talk about it.
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.
An excellent question number 11 and an equally excellent reply. I hope government officials could be made aware of the IP bank idea perhaps administered by Canada’s leading tech companies. Also some measure of attribution to a former company or individual creating such ideas.